DISTRICT COLLECTOR Vs. K ANBARASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE common questions of law and facts are involved in both the appeal and the writ petition, they have been heard and disposed of by this common judgement.

(2.) W.A.Nos.1018 & 1019 of 2010 arises out of a common order passed in W.P.Nos. 15846 & 15847 of 2008, whereby the learned single Judge allowed the writ petitions and directed the respondent-appellant to extend the lease of quarry in respect of the land in question.

(3.) IT appears that pursuant to the tender notice issued by the appellant under the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, the petitioner beings the successful bidders were granted quarry lease for a period of five years from 19.9.2003 to 18.09.2008. By proceeding dated 11.7.2005, the respondent-appellant issued the order of suspension to quarry until the leasehold lands are surveyed and demarcated. The petitioners challenged the said order by filing writ petition being W.P.No.23972 of 2005 and W.P.No.23971 of 2005. The said writ petitions were disposed of on 8.8.2005 directing the respondent-appellant to measure and handover the property, which has been leased out to them, within a period of three weeks. IT was, further, observed that the extension of such period has to be considered on account of suspension of the lease period. After the aforesaid direction, the lands were measured on 24.8.2005 and the report was submitted by the respondent-appellant. The respondent -appellant then issued a show cause notice on 2.9.2005 pointing out certain defects. The petitioners replied to the said notice and thereafter, an enquiry was conducted, but no order was issued. The writ petitioners thereafter again filed writ petitions being W.P.Nos.34567 and 34568 of 2005 for a mandamus directing the respondent to pass final orders on the show cause notice. The said writ petitions were disposed of on 26.10.2005 directing the respondents to pass final orders within two weeks. In spite of the aforesaid direction, no orders were passed and again the petitioners moved this Court by filing W.P. Nos. 1207 and 1208 of 2006 for quashing the order dated 11.7.2005. IT was only thereafter the petitioners were allowed to carry on mining operation on 20.04.2006.