The petitioner has come forward with the above Writ Petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent herein to permit the petitioner to carry on stone quarry operations in respect of lands in Survey No.430/2 measuring an extent of 1.00.0 hectares in Vadasery Village, Agatheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District, for a further period of five years, in pursuant to the amended Rule 8(8) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 on payment of enhanced lease amount.
2. According to the petitioner, the lease was entered into between the parties during the year 1998 and it is valid for five years. In the meantime, the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.391, Industries (MMC.1) Department, dated 17.01.2000, and the relevant portion of amendment in the said G.O., is extracted as under:
''(8) The period of lease for quarrying stone in respect of the virgin areas, which have not been subjected to quarrying so far, shall be ten years. The period of lease for quarrying stone in respect of other areas shall be five years. The period of lease for quarrying sand and other minor minerals, other than the minerals covered under rules 8/A and 8-C of the said Rules, shall not exceed three years and shall not be less than one year and shall be subject to the following conditions, namely:-
(i) The date of commencement of the period of lease granted under this rule shall be the date on which the lease deed is executed.
(ii) 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.''
3. It is stated by the petitioner that even before the five year period was over, the said Government Order has come into force and that in terms of Amended Rules, the petitioner is entitled to another extension and depriving him the extension, runs counter to Rule 8(i) of the Amended Rules. The contention of the respondent is that the petitioner has completely ignored Rule 8(ii) of the Amended Rules. Since the period had already expired and as a matter of right, the petitioner cannot seek for extension and ultimately, it is left to the discretion and other norms that the Government Authorities have to follow for extension.
4. Heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record.
5. Admittedly, the lease was entered into between the parties in the year 1998 and it got over in the year 2003. It is also an admitted fact that G.O.Ms.No.391, Industries (MMC.1) Department, dated 17.01.2000 came into existence and the relevant Rule is extracted supra. The extension of lease period cannot be automatic, as it is left to the discretion of the authorities. Amended Rule as a whole has got to be read together and it cannot be read in an isolated manner. So, ultimately, if Rule 8(i) and Rule 8(ii) are read together, the extension of period of lease shall not be automatic.
6. Hence, I find that there is no reason to grant relief as sought for by the petitioner. That apart, the lease was entered into between the parties in the year 1998 and 19 years have gone-by and even if the relief is granted to the petitioner, it is not going to help any one much less the petitioner, on merits. The petitioner's contention cannot be accepted and the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
19.09.2017 cs Index: Yes Internet: Yes To The District Collector, Kanyakumari District.
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J cs W.P.No.27986 of 2003 19.09.2017