A. ARUNAGIRI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VELLORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for a Mandamus seeking for a direction to the respondents to refund the proportionate lease amount of Rs.34,43,748.00(Rupees thirty four lakhs forty three thousand seven hundred forty eight only) and the EMD amount of Rs.3,62,500.00(Rupees three lakhs sixty two thousand five hundred only) together with interest @ 24% p.a from the date of payment till the date of refunding of the said amounts by considering the representation of the petitioner dtd. 28/9/2021.

(2.) The petitioner claims that he was granted quarry lease for a period of ten years. However, according to him, due to obstructions caused by the villagers, the petitioner could not utilise the quarry lease for a period of 9 years and 6 months. The petitioner also claims that he has paid the entire lease bid amount in advance to the respondents. According to the petitioner, since he was able to operate quarry lease only for a period of six months, after adjustment of the lease amount for the said period, the respondents will have to refund a sum of Rs.34,43,748.00Rupees thirty four lakhs forty three thousand seven hundred forty eight only) being the proportionate lease amount for the non-operative period. The petitioner has sought for refund of EMD paid by him amounting to Rs.3,62,500.00(Rupees three lakhs sixty two thousand five hundred only). He has also sought for interest at 24% per annum. The petitioner has given a representation on 28/9/2021 to the respondents seeking for refund of the aforementioned amount. Since his representation has not been considered till date, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) A Counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent denying the allegations of the petitioner. They would submit that for the fault of the petitioner, the respondents cannot be made liable to compensate the petitioner. According to the respondents, the contention of the petitioner that he was obstructed by the villagers from doing quarry work is false. According to the respondents, a complaint was given by Mr..N.Ramesh Rao, a resident of that area only in the year 2015 to the respondents requesting the respondents to cancel the quarry lease granted in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, according to the respondents, the allegations made by the petitioner that he was able to operate the quarry lease only for a period of six months is totally false. It is also stated in the counter that the proceedings initiated by Mr.N.Ramesh Rao for cancellation of lease in favour of the petitioner was also dismissed by the District Collector, Vellore in his proceedings Rc.No.514/2015(Mines) dtd. 23/11/2015 and the appeal preferred by him was also dismissed by the Commissioner of Geology and Mining, Chennai in his proceedings in Rc.No.10276/MM9/2015 dtd. 5/5/2017. According to the respondents, there was no hindrance for the petitioner to do the quarry work in his property.