K ARUNACHALAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant mail the writ appeals is one and the same and he had filed writ petition Nos. 374 to 376 and 379 of 1996 against the grant of leases for quarrying blue metal in favour of the fourth respondent in each of the cases. The writ petitions were dismissed by a common order of a learned single Judge of this Court, dated 12-9-1996.

(2.) The case of the appellant as disclosed in the affidavits filed by him before the learned single Judge is as follows : He is an ex-lessee of an extent of 78.78 acres of land in Thiruneermalai Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpat MGR District for quarrying blue metal. The period of lease ended on 1-8-1987. He applied for renewal and the same was rejected and the lease was granted to one M. Arumugham. The lease in favour of M. Arumugham also expired and the petitioner again applied for the grant of lease on 20-5-1994. By a letter dated 22-8-1994, the appellant was informed that as per the then existing Rules, the Collector would publish a notice, calling for tenders and the lease should be granted only on the basis of the highest offer. After the validation of Rule 39 by the Supreme Court of India the appellant again applied on 14-9-1995 and paid the requisite fees. Without calling for any tenders, the lease was granted to the fourth respondents by an order dated 12-12-1995. The contention of the appellant is that the said grant is illegal and liable to be quashed by this Court. In all the writ petitions, the grant was made to the fourth respondent in each case for identical extents of 25 acres of land under Rule 39 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules (hereinafter called as the Rules). The learned Single Judge found that the Government had made the grants based on the findings of a high level committee and that there was nothing illegal about the grant. Having granted the lease in favour of the three persons named as fourth respondent in each writ petition the Government found that there was no occasion for the grant of any further lease in the area and therefore rejected the application of the appellant on 29-12-1995. The grievance of the appellant that his application should have been considered along with the applications of the fourth respondent in each case, was rejected by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the applications of the grantees were disposed of even before the receipt of the application of the appellant with the remarks of the Collector. In the affidavit filed by the appellant, the grants in favour of the three respondents had been challenged on the ground that the Government cannot make a grant, according to its own whims and fancies, but should be satisfied that the grant is in public interest and in the interest of mineral development.

(3.) Before us, Mr. Vijay Narayan has projected the case of the appellant in a two fold manner. The first contention is that while exercising powers under Rule 39 of the Rules, the Government should have considered all the applications available on the date of grant and should have made a selection on the basis of merits. In this connection, reliance was placed on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in writ appeal Nos. 1036, 1089 and 1090 of 1995 S. Baskarun v. The Secretary to Government of TamiI Nadu, dated 8-11-1995. The second argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that in any event, the grant in favour of the fourth respondent in the writ petition in each case was not in accordance with the observations of the Supreme Court in Premium Granites v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1994 SC 2233. The argument is that the Government never considered the public interest or the interest of the mineral development before making the grant. In fact, a perusal of the orders of the Government would, according to learned counsel show that the Government had proceeded on an incorrect basis and the orders are vitiated by errors of law, apparent on the face of the record.