DISTRICT COLLECTOR DINDIGUL DISTRICT DINDIGUL Vs. P UDAYAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Thirugnanam, learned Special Government Pleader for the appellant. Mr. K. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel who appeared for the writ petitioner/respondent herein submits that he has already returned the papers to the writ petitioner/respondent herein, whose name also appears in the cause list. However, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent herein/writ petitioner.

(2.) AFTER hearing the learned Special Government Pleader for the appellant, we are satisfied that the appeal has become infructuous for the reasons discussed hereunder.

(3.) IN any event, it is reported that from 1. 10. 2003, in view of G. O. Ms. No. 95, INdustries Department, dated 1. 10. 2003, the sand quarry operation had been taken over by the Government by themselves and it is also a settled law that even for the period during which quarry operation was not exercised, the grantee is at liberty to workout only for compensation, but cannot claim any right to quarry for an extended period. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ appeal is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. .