Judgment:
ORDER
V. Dhanapalan, J.
1. The proceedings of the first respondent in G.O.(D) No. 152 Industries (MMB2) Department, dated 19.05.2009, pertaining to the petitioner's leased patta land quarry measuring 4.05.0 hectares, comprised in Survey No. 483/2, situate in Nadanthai Village of Paramathi-Velur Taluk, Namakkal District, are under challenge in this Writ Petition.
2. Petitioner was granted granite quarry lease in respect of his above leasehold patta land vide the G.O.3(D) No. 9 Industries (MMB.II) Department, dated 17.01.1994, by the first respondent for a period of ten years, which commenced from 21.02.1994. Since the said lease was to expire on 20.02.2004, the petitioner, by an application, dated 19.02.2003, to the first respondent, sought for renewal of the said lease. However, as the said application remained unattended to for quite a long time, the petitioner moved a Writ Petition in W.P. No. 1696 of 2004 before this Court and, on 13.02.2008, the said Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to the Government to fix the revised rental charges in accordance with law and that after fixing the rental charges, the Government should consider the application of the petitioner for renewal within a period of eight weeks thereafter. By the said order, the petitioner was also permitted to carry on quarrying operations till the application for renewal was considered and disposed of. While so, the first respondent, by the order impugned, rejected the application of the petitioner for renewal, based upon the recommendations of the District Collector, Namakkal, and the Commissioner of Geology and Mining. Hence, this Writ Petition.
3. A counter has been filed by the respondents, stating that Rule 19-A of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, (in short, 'the Rules'), was substituted by G.O.Ms. No. 86, Industries Department, dated 22.2.2001, subsequent to the framing of Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999, by the Government of India and hence after 27.02.2001, the provision of Rule 19-A is applicable in respect of the lease for granite in patta lands. Pursuant to the direction given by this Court on 13.02.2008 in W.P. No. 1696 of 2004, the first respondent has considered the application for renewal submitted by the petitioner and passed the impugned order, rejecting the renewal application. The land, which is the subject matter of lease is still registered in the name of three persons namely Karuppanna Gounder, Periasamy and S.Rathinam as per the village records and therefore the consent from Rathinam is not sufficient. The petitioner has not carried out quarry operation for a period of four years as per the report in Letter No. 8767/2007, dated 10.01.2007, issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchengode, and also as per the records available in the office of the second respondent. Since the petitioner has discontinued the quarry operation for a period of four years, the lease lapsed on the expiry of the period of two years under Section 4A(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (in short, 'the Act'). The petitioner has not obtained any transport permit for the said period of four years from the office of the second respondent. Hence, the first respondent has rightly rejected the renewal application on the ground of lapse of lease. The petitioner has to submit the mining plan along with the application for renewal of the lease under Rule 19A(19)(b) of the Rules. The petitioner has submitted the renewal application on 19.02.2003 whereas the mining plan was submitted only on 26.05.2003. Since the mining plan was not enclosed at the time of submitting the application, the first respondent has rejected the renewal application. The first respondent has taken into consideration the relevant provisions of the Rules and the Act and passed the impugned order, dated 19.05.2009. Hence, the order passed by the first respondent is legal and in accordance with law.
4. The foremost contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the lease agreement was entered into with one Mr. Rathinam, who purchased the land from the erstwhile owners, and the same has not been considered by the authorities and also, the obtaining of transport permits for mining operations is not necessary. He further contends that in respect of the mining plan, permission for mining operation has been obtained and though all the documents are placed before the authorities, the same have not been taken into account and, therefore, there is total non-application of mind on the part of the respondents. He would also argue that the authorities, before coming to the conclusion that since the petitioner did not apply for transport permit there was no mining operation, ought to have given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to ascertain whether there was mining operation or not.
5. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader would contend that the authorities have considered all aspects with regard to the land lease as well as the transport permit and the mining operations and as such there is no infirmity in the order passed by the first respondent.
6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also gone through the records.
7. A scrutiny of the records would reveal that there is a lease agreement dated 30.05.1992 with one Rathinam and the documents, which were placed before the authorities, are annexed in the typed set of papers. Earlier, the applications submitted for renewal of the quarry lease have been considered by this Court in W.P. Nos. 1696 of 2004 and 243 of 2005. It is seen that in respect of the same land, the petitioner and the Collector have entered into a lease agreement. Now, for the very same land, the petitioner has applied for renewal of the lease. Therefore, the establishment of surface right of the petitioner over the subject land for renewal of quarry lease, as it was done in the grant of quarry lease based upon the agreement, has to be looked into.
8. Section 4A(4) of the Act provides that where the holder of a mining lease fails to undertake mining operations for a period of two years after the date of execution of the lease or having commenced mining operation has discontinued the same for a period of two years, the lease shall lapse on the expiry of the period of two years from the date of execution of the lease or, as the case may be, discontinuance of the mining operations. The authorities, before coming to the conclusion that since the petitioner did not apply for transport permit there was no mining operation, ought to have given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
9. It is also argued by the counsel for the petitioner that just because there was no transport permit, it cannot be construed that there was no mining operation. In support of this argument, a reliance has been made on a decision of this Court in W.P. No. 10802 of 1998, dated 13.12.2001, wherein it was held as follows:
4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that merely because the petitioner had not applied for permit, it cannot be construed that the petitioner failed to undertake mining operation. The learned Counsel, referred to the affidavit, has submitted that the petitioner did mining operation and merely because the petitioner did not apply for permit, the Government cannot pass the impugned order behind the back of the petitioner on the basis of the report submitted by the Collector on 28.4.1998. It is the specific case of the learned Counsel that the Collector also did not give any opportunity before sending the report to the Government and equally the Government has not given any opportunity before passing the impugned order. When the petitioner has come forward with a specific plea that he was doing mining operation even during those periods, the Collector should not have sent the report to the Government, merely because the petitioner did not apply for permit and the Government should have given an opportunity to the petitioner before coming to a conclusion that the lease granted to the petitioner was lapsed. Since the said exercise has not been done by the Collector and the Government, the impugned order passed is against the principles of natural justice and so, it cannot be sustained. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and it is for the respondents to pass orders, if it is necessary, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and in accordance with Section 4(A)(iv) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.
10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has denied the contention of the respondents that by misrepresenting the facts, the petitioner has obtained an order to carry on quarry operations pending renewal. In this regard, he cited two relevant orders of this Court in W.P. No. 1696 of 2004, dated 13.02.2008, and W.P. No. 243 of 2005, dated 06.09.2007. In W.P. No. 1696 of 2004, it was held as under:
5. While entertaining the present Writ Petition, this Court, by order dated 04.02.2004, has granted interim injunction. Following the above Division Bench judgment, there shall be a direction to the State Government to fix the revised rental/charges in accordance with law and after fixing the rental/charges, the State Government shall consider the application for renewal within a period of eight weeks thereafter. In the mean time, the petitioner is entitled to carry on quarrying operations till the applications for renewal are considered and disposed of by the State Government.
In W.P. No. 243 of 2005, a Division Bench of this Court has held as follows:
4. Learned Advocate General submitted that the applications for renewal will be considered and orders will be passed on the applications within a period of four months from today. He submitted that the petitioners have been allowed to continue the quarrying operations by virtue of the interim orders passed by this Court and the State Government is also entitled to fix the rental/charges for the period after the expiry of the lease under Rule 19 of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, till fresh permission is granted. He submitted that the State Government will fix rental/charges within a period of 30 days from today. We make it clear that only after the revised rental/charges are paid, as fixed by the State Government, within a period of eight weeks, the applications for renewal will be considered by the State Government. It is needless to say that the petitioners will be entitled to carry on the quarrying operations till their applications for renewal are considered and disposed of.
11. It is also seen from the records that on 26.05.2003, the petitioner had enclosed five copies of mining plan for the referred area. Therefore, all these factors had not been taken into account by the authorities before passing the impugned order. Had these factors been taken into account by the first respondent and the matter considered in accordance with the rules, there would have been an order on application of mind. The documents produced by the petitioner are the relevant documents for consideration by the authorities. Also, as already stated, the authorities, before coming to any conclusion on the subject matter, ought to have given an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, which is, conspicuously, not done in the case on hand and, therefore, there is a violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, in my considered opinion, the first respondent has not applied his mind to go into all the documents and, as such, the matter requires a re-look.
12. In the light of the above discussion, this Writ Petition is allowed and the order impugned is set aside, remitting the matter back to the authorities for fresh consideration, taking into account all the above factors, and passing appropriate orders afresh on merit and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2009 are closed. It is made clear that the authorities, while deciding the matter afresh, shall not, in any way, be influenced by any of the observations made in this order.