This writ petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to refund the deposit amount of Rs.14,00,000/- deposited by the petitioner along with interest within a time frame fixed by this Court by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 20.02.2015.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the second respondent herein called for tender to quarry gravels in S.No.425/2 over an extent of 4.57.5 hectares in Kottaram Village, Agesteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District. As per the terms and conditions of the notification, he has paid Rs.14 Lakhs for participating in the auction and thereafter, as directed by the respondents, the petitioner made an additional deposit amount of Rs.1,23,500/-. The petitioner became successful bidder, as he has quoted Rs.14,00,000/-. The purpose of tender was to remove the gravels from the Public Works Department tank located in S.No.425/2 at Kottaram Village, Agesteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District. Only after considering the feasibility for quarrying gravels upto the depth of 2 meter from the surface level by leaving safety distance as per the assessment made by the respondents and considering the recoverable resources of gravel which was calculated as Rs.45,448/- cubic meter, permission was granted to the petitioner. The Commissioner of Geological of Mining, Chennai by communication dated 19.11.2012 also granted approval of the said mining plan.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondents, after considering the amount quoted by the petitioner, directed the petitioner to deposit the balance amount of Rs.12,35,000/- to the credit of the respondent account, after deducting the Earnest Money Deposit and additional deposit which was already paid by the petitioner and the said amount was paid on 04.06.2013. When the petitioner sought permission for quarrying, it was replied that due to availability of water in the tank, he was not permitted for quarrying. Though the petitioner has paid the entire amount of Rs.14,00,000/-, he has not been permitted to quarry and therefore, he requested the respondents to refund the amount as early as 20.02.2015. Despite the same, no effective steps have been taken by the respondents to refund of the amount paid by the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief stated supra.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent wherein in paragraph Nos.4 and 5, it has been averred as follows:- '4. It is submitted that since the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, New Delhi in its order in I.A.No.12-13/2011 in SLP (C)No.19628/19629/2009 dated 27.02.2012 in the matter of Depak Kumar etc., Vs. State of Hariyana and others has categorically stated that the leases of Minor Mineral including their renewal even for an area of less than 5 Hectares, be granted by the States / Union Territories only after getting environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forest, the successful bidder/writ petitioner was directed to submit Mining Plan by the 1st Respondent in his letter Rc.No.315/G85M/2013 dated 30.05.2013. The highest bidder submitted the Mining Plan in his letter dated 20.08.2013 and the 2nd Respondent has approved the Mining Plan and sent the approved Mining Plan to the writ petitioner in his Letter No.315/G&M/2013 dated 26.08.2013. Based on this approved Mining Plan, the writ petitioner should sent application to the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Chennai for environmental clearance. The Environmental clearance has not been obtained by the writ petitioner till date. Only on its receipt he could commence the quarrying.
5. It is submitted that in these circumstances, the writ petitioner presented one petition dated 20.02.2015 requesting to refund the entire bid amount of Rs. 14 Lakhs ( Fourteen Lakhs) since he is unable to conduct the quarry for the past two years. His request was scrutinised with reference to rules. There is no provision in the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 to refund the bid amount remitted. Besides, as per lease condition No.16 notified in the Gazette, the lessee is responsible for all losses during the lease period and after its expiry and as per condition No.18, the lessee should not claim compensation for any loss. Besides, as per the notified general condition No.34, the lease will be confirmed on receipt of environmental clearance and after confirmation, the lessee should execute the lease deed and the lease period commences from the date of execution of lease deed. Hence the writ petitioner/the highest bidder is eligible to enjoy the lease after the production of environmental clearance. The 1st Respondent sent Memo Rc.No.315/G85M/2013 dated 03.06.2015 informing the writ petitioner that his request to refund the lease rent could not be complied with and he has been again directed to submit the Environmental clearance obtained from the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Chennai to commence his quarrying activities. Instead of producing the Environmental clearance the writ petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for a direction to the Respondents to refund the lease amount remitted by him.?
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
6. The sum and substance of the counter affidavit of the first respondent is that the second respondent is not able to pass orders for want of the clearance by the third respondent.
7. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he is ready to submit an application before the third respondent seeking environmental clearance within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the same, the third respondent may pass appropriate orders.
8. The learned Government Advocate would submit that on receipt of environmental clearance, further order would be passed by the second respondent.
9. As stated earlier, the only reason adverted by the learned Government Advocate for not granting license is that since the petitioner has not obtained environmental clearance as per the orders of the Supreme Court, they are not in a position to grant license for quarrying. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to submit an application to the third respondent along with a copy of this order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the application, the third respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of application to be submitted by the petitioner. Further, as per the outcome of the order of the third respondent, the second respondent is directed to pass consequential orders within a period of four weeks, thereafter.
10. With the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To,
1.The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.
2.The Assistant Director, Department of Geological and Mining, Collectorate, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
3.The State Level Impact Assessment Authority, 3rd Floor, Panagal Maligai, No.1, Jeenis Road, Saidapet, Chennai-15..