V RAJA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was granted Sand Quarry lease by way of lease agreement dated 4.2.2009 for quarrying and removing river sand from S.F. No. 254 (Old) in Vanpakkam Village, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District, over an extent of 5.00.0 Hectares, for a period of six months from 4.2.2009 to 3.8.2009. He operated the quarry for one month from 4.2.2009 to. 4.3.2009. He did not use the balance period for one reason or other. Thereafter, he requested the Government to permit him to use poclain for sand quarrying for the un-expired portion of five months. The same was rejected by the first respondent Government in G.O.(D) No. 196, Industries (MMC2) Department, dated 21.10.2010. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the said order and also for a consequential direction to the respondents to permit him to carry on manual quarrying of sand from S.F. No. 254 (Old) in Vanpakkam Village, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District, over an extent of 5.00.0 Hectares. The case has a checkered history. The details of the same are given below:

(2.) The petitioner filed a lengthy affidavit stating that the petitioner should have been granted permission to use Poclain machine. However, the prayer in the writ petition is that the petitioner should be given permission to quarry sand manually for the un-expired period of five months as per the lease deed dated 4.2.2009, since he filed writ petitions seeking permission for use of Poclain machine and in the meantime, the period of lease came to an end. According to the petitioner, as he was prosecuting writ petitions before this Court, he could be granted permission to complete the un-expired period of five months as per the lease deed dated 4.2.2009.

(3.) The respondents have filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations made by the petitioner. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner should blame himself for not operating the sand quarry during the lease period and that the respondents never prevented him from operating the quarry. Since the petitioner on his own volition did not operate during the lease period, he could not now seek for permission to use the un-expired lease period.