E.N. KANDASAMY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the proceedings dated 30.07.2002 passed by the second respondent rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for grant of mining lease to quarry major mineral quartz and feldspar over an extent of 4.76.0 hectares in Survey Nos.117/2D, 120/2B, 171, 121/1A, 118 and 121/1B of Koothanatham Village, Tiruchengodu Taluk, Salem District, by exercising the power conferred under Rule 26(1) of the Mineral concession rules, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), the petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent relating to the order in Rc.No.11050/MM3/92 dated 30.07.2002, quash the same and consequently to direct respondents 1 to 3 to grant mining lease in favour of the petitioner for the lands in Survey Nos.117/2D, 120/2B, 171, 121/1A, 118/2 and 121/1B of Koothanatham Village, Tiruchengodu Taluk, Salem District.

(2.) IN the impugned proceedings dated 30.7.2002, the second respondent rejected the application filed by the petitioner for mining lease referred to above, of course, after issuing notice to the petitioner before passing the impugned order as contemplated under Rule 26(1) of the Rules, finding that the petitioner had given a false affidavit/written statement that he had obtained the consent of the pattadars -respondents 5 to 8 and also observing that the concerned pattadars -respondents 5 to 8 had already entered into an agreement permitting the fourth respondent to apply for the mining lease for about 21 years.

(3.) MR . C. Prakasam, learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 to 8 -pattadars submits that the affidavit/written statement said to have been made by the pattadars -respondents 5 to 8 as relied on by the petitioner is forged one and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for, for non compliance of Rule 22(3)(h) of the Rules. In any event, since the pattadars -respondents 5 to 8 had already given their consent in favour of the fourth respondent to apply for the mining lease in their respective lands, they cannot be compelled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to give any consent in favour of the petitioner.