The court affirmed that while statutory rules may not provide for lease extensions, equity requires recognition of circumstances where operations were unjustifiably halted, allowing for such extensions in pursuit of fairness.

ORDER :

1. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General assisted by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner was granted quarry license on 25.01.2019. It was for a period of five years. The petitioner had quarried outside the licensed area. He was therefore visited with penalty. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.3075 of 2020. The order imposing penalty was set aside on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice and the matter was remanded to the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Uthamapalayam for fresh consideration. The RDO, Uthamapalayam reduced the amount to a sum of Rs.1,64,12,856/-. This included penalty as well as the cost of mineral. The petitioner paid the said amount without any demur. During the intervening period for about 13 months and 19 days, the petitioner was not allowed to operate the licensed quarry. The District Collector, Theni passed the order dated 05.02.2021 reviving and restoring the petitioner's lease subject to certain terms and conditions. The condition imposed by the respondents was that the petitioner should not claim extension for the lapsed period of lease. The petitioner also executed an affidavit in compliance with the said condition. The question that calls for consideration is whether the petitioner can seek corresponding extension of the quarry lease for non-operative period of 13 months and 19 days.

3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. He relied heavily on the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench reported in The District Collector, Namakkal Vs. K. Anbarasi , (2011) 4 MLJ 643 . He called upon this Court to grant relief as prayed for.

4. The respondents have filed counter affidavit. The learned Additional Advocate General took me through its contents. His argument is that the statutory scheme does not provide for any extension of the lease period. If at all, the petitioner's quarry operations were unjustifiably stopped, the petitioner at best can seek proportionate refund or damages. His further contention is that in this case, the stoppage of the quarry operations was on account of the petitioner's misconduct. The petitioner had quarried in the non-leased area. That the petitioner was at fault is evident from the fact that he had remitted the penalty amount earlier. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any discretionary relief at the hands of this Court. He also would point out that the petitioner is estopped from maintaining the writ prayer. Having taken the benefit under the proceedings dated 05.02.2021 and having executed the affidavit, it is not open to the petitioner to do U turn and challenge the condition. He called upon this Court to dismiss the writ petition. Since there is no legal right inhering in the petitioner, he cannot maintain this petition for a writ of mandamus.

5. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. The basic facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was granted lease with effect from 25.01.2019. It was a five year lease. The petitioner could not operate the lease from 18.12.2019 till 07.02.2021. I wanted to know if the respondents had issued any formal order stopping the quarrying operations or suspending the petitioner's lease. I called upon the respondents to produce the copy of the proceedings, if any.

6. Today when the matter was taken up for hearing, the respondents could not produce any such suspension order or stoppage order