COLLECTOR OF KAMARAJAR DISTRICT VIRUDHUNAGAR Vs. C KULANDAIVELU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are preferred against the common order dated 9. 2. 1994 passed by the learned single Judge in W. P. Nos. 8127, 8129, 8131 and 8133 of 1992. In these writ petitions, the petitioners sought for quashing the orders passed by the Collector of the District, rejecting the applications filed for renewal, of the leases on the ground that the applications were filed beyond the period permitted for making such an application for renewal and that the second renewal was not permissible. Learned single Judge has found that the applications, for renewal were filed in time. That it is so is not disputed before us. The second reason given by the Collector that Rule 9 of the Tamil nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 (here in after referred to as'the rules'), as it stood prior to the amendment, did not provide for second renewal. Rule 9 (1) as it stood prior to the amendment, was as follows "9. Renewal of lease: (1) Subject to the provisions of clause (b) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8, the Collector may on application renew a lease for a further period not exceeding the period for which the lease was originally granted, if he is satisfied that; (i) such renewal is in the interest of mineral development; and (ii) the lease amount is reasonable in the case of leases originally obtained through public auction. " It is the contention of the learned Additional Government pleader that Rule 9 (1), as it stood at the relevant point of time, did not provide for second renewal. We find it difficult to read the said rule, in the manner the learned Additional Government Pleader wants us to read. There is no such embargo found in the said rule. What the said rule says is that renewal should be for a further period not exceeding the period for which the lease was originally granted. It only means that if renewal were to be granted it should not be for a period more than three years. There is no embargo as to the number of renewals to be granted. Therefore, it is not possible to agree with the reasoning of the Collector that Rule 9 (1), as it stood at the relevant point of time, did not empower second renewal.

(2.) LEARNED single Judge, after coming to the conclusion that the applications for renewal of lease were in time and Rule 9 (1) as it stood at the relevant point of time, did not prohibit second renewal, ought to have remitted the applications for renewal for consideration in accordance with rule 9 (1 ). But the learned single Judge has allowed those applications on the ground that as no other reasons were given by the Collector for rejecting the applications for renewal of leases, it was not at all necessary to remit the same. We find it difficult to agree with the learned single Judge. Rule 9 (l) (i)and (ii) as extracted above clearly provide that renewal can be granted only if it is found that such renewal is in the interest of mineral development and that the lease amount is reasonable in the case of leases originally obtained through public auction. In the instant case, the leases in question were originally obtained through public auction. Therefore, these two aspects are required to be decided by the Collector before deciding as to whether the renewal should be granted or not. There was no material placed before the learned single Judge to record a finding that the renewal of the leases in question was in the interest of mineral development and that the lease amounts were reasonable. That being so, we are of the view that the applications for renewal of leases in question ought to have been remitted to the Collector.