@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
C.S. Karnan, J.@mdashThe short facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioner respectfully states and submits that he had applied for removal of savudu soil at Survey No. 195, Satharai Eeri and upon the recommendation of the Public Works Department, Tahsildar and Sub-Collector. He was permitted to remove the said Savudu soil. He states that he was granted the permission for the removal of Savudu soil for a period of 35 days from 27.09.2010 to 31.10.2010 and he removed 39 lorry load savudu soil from the above said place. However, due to rain he surrendered the said permission to the respondent on 10.10.2010. He states that it was only because of heavy rain that he was not able to continue with the removal of the savudu soil. He respectfully states and submits that thereafter during August 2011, he obtained a Technical Report on 29.08.2011 and he had obtained the approval from the Public Works Department on 06.09.2011. Subsequently, on 03.02.2012 the Sub-Collector, Thiruvallur District issued his recommendation and the Tahsildar issued the recommendation on 13.02.2012. In all these reports / recommendations it has been categorically stated that 39 lorry loads of savudu soil had been removed and the authorities permitted the removal of the balance 2961 lorry loads of savudu soil.
2. He submits that after 13.02.2013 he has been running from pillar to post to obtain the final permission of the removal of the balance 2961 of savudu soil from the land namely Survey No. 195, Satharai Village, Thiruvallur Taluk and District from the respondent. He respectfully submits that because of the inaction of the part of the respondent in granting him the required permission for the removal of said savudu soil he has made a detailed representation to the respondent dated 19.04.2013 through speed post acknowledgment due and same has been received by the respondent office on 22.04.2013. He respectfully submits that though the respondent had received the representation on 22.04.2013 till date there is no response at all from the respondent''s end. The respondent is duty bound to dispose of his representation, the respondent has not initiated any action so far. He submits that only during the summer season only he can remove the savudu soil from the above said place. Hence, he may be permitted to move this writ petition before this Court.
3. The respondent has filed counter statement and resisted the above writ petition on the following grounds.
It is submitted that the petitioner Thiru.M.Annamalai has preferred an application to quarry 5000 lorry loads of Gravel from the P.W.D. tank comprised in S.F.No. 195 of Satharai Village, Thiruvallur Taluk. Based on the recommendations of the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Kusasthalaiyar Basin Division, Thiruvallur, Tahsildar and Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvallur and the Assistant Geologist (G&M), Thiruvallur the application of the petitioner was considered and necessary permission was granted to quarry 3000 lorry loads of Gravel for a period of 30 days from 27.09.2010 to 31.10.2010 as per District Collector''s Proceedings in Rc.No. 1001/2010/G&M-2, dated 27.09.2010 under Rule 12 of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959.
4. It is submitted that, during the lease period, the writ petitioner had obtained 1500 despatch slips to quarry gravel from the subject area. Having sought for quarrying permission and obtaining despatch slips, it is the liability of the petitioner to carryout quarrying operations within the stipulated lease period. Instead, the petitioner had sent a representation dated 14.10.2010 citing weather conditions and thereby his inability to carryout quarrying operations during the lease period. It is submitted that the Revenue and Public Works Department officials have recommended for the grant of permission to the applicant to quarry the balance quantity of savudu from the above tank.
5. It is submitted that in District Collector''s Proceedings Rc.No. 1001/2010/G&M-2, dated 27.09.2010, it has been specified in 26 of Special conditions, that under no circumstances, extension of lease period would be granted. As the lease period has already expired on 31.10.2010 and as there is no rule provision to grant further period to remove the balance quantity of mineral as requested by the writ petitioner, the prayer of the petitioner cannot be complied with. Also, Rule 8 (ii) of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 clearly stipulates that the lease shall expire on the date specified in the lease deed and in no case extension of the period of lease shall be made. The petitioner Thiru.M.Annamalai, was granted to quarry 3000 lorry loads of Gravel for a period of 30 days from 27.09.2010 to 31.10.2010 as per District Collector''s Proceedings in Rc.No. 1001/2010/G&M-2, dated 27.09.2010 under Rule 12 of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. The District Collector''s Proceedings in Rc.No. 1001/2010/G&M-2, dated 27.09.2010, it has been specified in 26 of Special conditions, that under no circumstances, extension of lease period would be granted. Hence, the petitioner cannot make such a claim for the grant of permission to quarry the balance quantity as alleged by him. He also wishes to state, that the petitioner/ex-lessee did not surrender the unused despatch slips as alleged by him. Apart from this, there is no rule provision for the grant of extension of lease period.
6. That irrespective of the recommendations made by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Kusasthalaiyar Basin Division, Thiruvallur and Sub-Collector, Thiruvallur for the grant of permission to the petitioner to quarry the remaining lorry loads of savudu and in view of the special condition imposed in Sl.No. 26 of the District Collector''s Proceedings dated 27.09.2010, his representation is not attracted as per Rule 8(ii) of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, wherein it has been clearly stipulated that the lease shall expire on the date specified in the lease deed and in no case extension of the period of lease shall be made. The lease period has also expired on 31.10.2010. The petitioner has made a representation, contrary to District Collector''s Proceedings and lease agreement and as well as against the rules. Hence, the petitioner''s request deserves to be rejected. In another case seeking permission to quarry the balance quantity of savudu from P.W.D. Tank, this Court had issued orders in W.P.No. 15205 of 2013 and M.P.No. 1 of 2013, dated 06.06.2013, had dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner.
7. The highly competent counsel Mr.V.Chinnasamy submits that the petitioner was permitted to remove the Savudu soil at Survey No. 195, Satharai Eri after recommendation by the Public Works Department, Revenue Tahsildar and Sub-Collector. The permission was for a period of 35 days from 27.09.2010 to 31.10.2010 and 39 lorry load of Savudu soil was removed from the said lands. Due to heavy rain, the petitioner surrendered the said permission to the respondent on 10.10.2010 since the petitioner was unable to carry out removal of the Savudu soil from the said land. The learned counsel additionally added that during the month of August 2011, he had obtained technical report and also approval from the Public Works Department as well as Tahsildar and Sub-Collector, who are attached to the Revenue Department, who also recommended for removal of Savudu soil i.e. the balance lorry load of 2961. But, the respondent had not considered the petitioner''s application along with recommendation m made by the appropriate authorities. Further, the petitioner''s representation dated 19.04.2013 is still pending on the file of the respondent.
8. The very competent counsel Mr.V.Shanmugasundar appearing for the State submits that initially the petitioner was granted permission to quarry 3000 lorry loads of gravel for a period of 30 days from 27.09.2010 to 31.10.2010 as per the respondent''s proceedings. The said permission was granted under Rule 12 of Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules. During the lease period, the petitioner had obtained 1500 despatch slips to quarry gravel from the subject area. As such, the petitioner''s request is not a bonafide one. The highly competent counsel further submits that as per the respondent''s order dated 27.09.2010, it has been specified in 26 of special conditions that under no circumstances, the extension of lease period would be granted after expiry of lease period on 31.10.2010. As such, the petitioner''s request is not maintainable as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. As such, the petitioner''s claim cannot be considered. Further, similar case had been decided by way of Writ Petition No. 15205 of 2013 against the writ petitioner which has been upheld.
9. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the typed set of papers, this Court declines to grant remedy to the petitioner in the absence of documentary proof. Further, as per the condition imposed by the respondent herein, the extension of time cannot be granted. However, the petitioner''s representation dated 19.04.2013, which has been annexed with the recommendation letters issued by the Public Works Department and Sub-Collector of the District has to be disposed of on merits. Hence, this Court directs the respondent herein to dispose of the same on merits within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order, after prior notice to the petitioner. No costs. Accordingly ordered.
