S. SUNDARAPANDIAN Vs. THE TAMIL NADU MINERALS LTD., REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND THE PROJECT OFFICER, THE TAMIL NADU MINERALS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the Petitioner has obtained an order of status quo on 29.04.2011, in the present writ petition filed after the expiry of contract period i.e., 12.03.2011, Mr. Veerakathiravan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that he is not ready to make submission on the writ petition. Nevertheless, considering the averments and the nature of the order passed by this Court, this Court is inclined to consider the merits of the case, with reference to the impugned order which clearly states that the Raising Agent agreement for Keelavalavu (297/5) "D" portion ends on 12.03.2011.

(2.) Pleading and the material on record show that the Government of Tamil Nadu issued an order granting lease in favour of the Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited, represented by its Chairman, Chennai, enabling the first Respondent company, owned by the State for conducting quarrying operation and also for marketing granites available in the survey site. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent is only a marketing agency of minerals in the State of Tamil Nadu. The Petitioner, who became a successful bidder, vide order, dated 12.03.2008, has been granted a contract to raise the minerals from quarry site by deploying machineries and to hand over the same to the marketing agency viz., TAMIN Limited. Even as per the contract entered into between TAMIN and the writ Petitioner, the period expires on 12.03.2011. It is the case of the Petitioner, the first Respondent has promised that even after the expiry of the lease period, the contract to raise the minerals would be continued and on that basis, the Petitioner had invested more than one crore for engaging the machineries for scientific raising of granite blocks. When the Petitioner legitimately expected that the assurance made by the first Respondent would be honoured, the impugned order has been passed, violating the principles of promissory estoppel. It is the further submission of the Petitioner, even before the expiry of the period i.e., 12.03.2011, he has made a request on 28.02.2011 to the first Respondent to extend the lease period on the same conditions, as it was done earlier. However, no order has been passed. In the above said circumstances, he has submitted that the impugned order, directing the Petitioner to withdraw all his belongings from the site, would cause serious hardship, as he has invested huge money for purchasing machineries. In the pleadings, the Petitioner has also referred to an interim order passed in W.P. No. 23891 of 2006, in a similar case.

(3.) Though counter affidavit has not been filed by the Respondent, on instructions from the Respondents, Mr. B. Pugalenthi, learned Special Government Pleader submitted that pursuant to passing of the impugned order, possession of the quarry site had already been taken. The said submission of the learned Government Counsel is placed on record. Though he attempted to justify the order on merits by contending that there was a breach of contractual obligations, in lifting the granite from the site, this Court is not inclined to advert to the same for the following reasons.