A ULAGANATHAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SALEM DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider and to grant the necessary permit to the petitioner, to quarry stones from the land bearing S.No.113(Part), admeasuring 2.00.0 Hectares, in Udayapatti Village, Salem Taluk, Salem District, for a period of 10 years from the date of execution of the lease deed, as notified in the Salem District Gazette Extra Ordinary (Issue No.22), dated 15.6.2006, as per Rule 8(8) of the Tamilnadu? Minor Mineral Rules, 1959.

(2.) THE petitioner has stated that the District Collector, Salem District, had issued a notification in the Salem District Gazette Extra Ordinary (Issue No.22), dated 15.6.2006, notifying the poramboke land bearing S.No.113(Part) admeasuring 2.00.0 Hectares, in Udayapatti Village, Salem Taluk, Salem District, for the quarrying of stones, for a period of 10 years, to the successful tenderer/bidder, through a tender-cum-auction, and had called for sealed tenders to be submitted on 6.7.2006. THE open auction had been fixed to be held on 7.7.2006. THE said notification came to be issued under Rule 8 of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. THE land in question being a virgin land, the period of lease was fixed as 10 years. Accordingly, the public auction had been called for the granting of the lease relating to the said land, for the purpose of quarrying stones, for a period of 10 years.

(3.) THE petitioner has further stated that, immediately after the execution of the lease deed, he had submitted a representation to the District Collector, Salem, the respondent herein, through the Assistant Director (Geology and Mining), Salem, on 7.3.2007, requesting for the grant of lease, for a period of 10 years, as per the notification issued by the respondent. However, the said representation had not been considered by the respondent. THErefore, the petitioner had submitted a further representation, dated 10.10.2011, to the respondent, requesting him to grant the lease in favour of the petitioner for a further period of 5 years. THE respondent had not considered the same. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.