STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. S PRABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER a party, guilty of obtaining orders by making false representation, knowing it to be false and misleading the Court, can be permitted to avail the benefits that would flow from the order, in exercise of the equity jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is the core issue that arises for consideration in this writ appeal.

(2.) THE direction given by the learned single Judge to consider the case of the respondent after setting aside the order passed by the Government, rejecting the request to permit him to conduct sand quarrying operations in the alternative site, without even challenging the very order of cancellation of lease dated 2 February 1998, on account of the failure to comply with the mandatory conditions of lease, made the State to file this writ appeal. THE FACTS IN NUT SHELL :-

(3.) FAILURE on the part of the respondent to pay the security deposit within the time granted by the District Collector made the said authority to cancel the lease on 2 February 1998. The respondent thereafter submitted a representation on 1 December 2001 to execute the lease agreement. While the said application was pending, the State introduced Rule 38(A) in and by which the right to exploit the quarry of sand got vested exclusively with the State. The Rule came into force with effect from 2 October 2003. The amended Rule was challenged before the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu vs. P.Krishnamurthy [2006 AIR SCW 1778]. The Supreme Court while upholding the amended Rule directed the State to permit such of those writ petitioners whose leases were subsisting as on 2 October 2003 to carry on the quarrying activities for a period of six months or for the actual unexpired period of the lease, whichever is less. The Supreme Court also extended the benefits to those who have orders of the Court for grant of mining leases but where mining leases were not executed for one reason or the other.