K KATHIR KAMARAJ Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR KANCHEEPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since in all these matters, similar questions of law are involved, they all are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the facts in gist, of the above cases are extracted below: W.A.Nos.669 and 1504 of 2009:

(3.) Pursuant to the notification published in the District Gazette, dated 19.12.2002, by the District Collector, Kancheepuram, inviting applications for the grant of lease to quarry stones, through tender/auction in the lands comprised in various Survey Numbers in several villages of Kancheepuram District, the appellant in both the appeals by name K.Kathir Kamaraj applied for and became the highest bidder for Quarry No.4 in Survey No.25/2B, Tirusoolam village in an extent of 1.32.0 hectares and executed a deed of lease on 16.9.2003, for quarrying rights for a period of five years, i.e. upto 15.9.2008. While the said lease period was about to expire, the lessee K.Kathir Kamaraj made a request to the District Collector on 15.5.2008, seeking extension of lease for a further period of five years on the ground that the quarry for which the lease was granted was a virgin quarry and therefore, by virtue of Rule 8(8) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, the lease ought to have been for a period of ten years in the case of virgin quarries. Thereafter, he also filed a writ petition in W.P.No.22068 of 2008, claiming that the application for renewal is pending and thus sought for a writ of mandamus to forbear the authorities from interfering with his right to continue the quarrying operations till the expiry of another five years period from the date of expiry of the original lease in which an order of interim injunction was granted on 8.9.2008. However, even by the time the interim order was granted, the District Collector had already passed an order dated 2.9.2008, rejecting the request for extension of the period of lease on the ground that the quarry in question was not a virgin quarry. Challenging the said order, the appellant has filed W.P.No.551 of 2009. In view of the rejection order passed by the District Collector, the first writ petition filed by the appellant in W.P.No.22068 of 2008 was dismissed .