M PRASAD Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the proceedings of G. O. (3d) No. 204 Industries (MME-1) Department, dated 22. 9. 1995 of the first respondent, quash the same and direct the first respondent to consider all the applications together for the grant of river sand quarry tease in Ramanjeri village, Tiruvallur Taluk, Chengai-MGR District measuring to an extent of 10. 30. 0 hectares in Survey No. 1412.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner as seen from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is briefly stated hereunder: THE petitioner has applied for mining lease for quarrying river sand in Ramanjeri Village, tiruvallur Taluk, Chengai-MGR District over an extent of 56. 35 hectares in survey No. 1412. THE said application fee for the grant of lease was made on 29. 7. 1995 to the Secretary to Government, Fort St. George, Madras-9. THE necessary application fee of Rs. 1. 500 has also, been duly remitted on the very same day by way of demand draft drawn on State Bank of India, Kancheepuram. THE said application was made under Rule 39 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession rules, 1959. THE validity of the said Rule has been upheld by the Apex Court in Premium Granites v. State of Tamil Nadu, A. I. R. 1994 S. C. 2233. THE Supreme Court of india, in the said judgment as well as in the subsequent decisions has clearly laid down mat Rule 39 of the Rules is a special provision which deals with a situation wherein the interest of Mineral development and in Public interest it is necessary to grant or renew the lease or allow the working of any quarry on terms and conditions different from those laid down under the Rules.

(3.) MR. RThiyagarajan, teamed senior counsel raised the following two submissions: (i) Inasmuch as on the date of the impugned order in favour of the 4th respondent the application filed by the petitioner with the recommendation of the District collector was with the Government, failure to consider the similar application applied for the very same land vitiate the entire proceedings: (ii) The Government fail to consider the two important factors viz. , Mineral Development and public interest. In the absence of any conclusion by the Government that the grant in favour of 4th respondent is in the interest of Mineral Development and in the Public interest the impugned order cannot be sustained. 7a. In support of the above propositions, he has relied on the following decisions: (i) Order in Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited v. P. Ramachandran and others, W. A. No. 1283 of 1995, etc. dated 11. 11. 1994; (ii) Order in P. Ponnusamy v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, S. L. P. Nos. 14091-14102 of 1994, dated 25. 11. 1994; (iii) Order in Vijay Mines and Minerals, Tirupur v. State of Tamil Nadu and others,w. P. Nos. 19868 of 1994 etc. dated 17. 2. 1995. (iv) Order in M/s. Shyba Granites v. Secretary to government of Tamil Nadu and another W. P. No. 8493 of 1995, dated 4. 9. 1995; (v) Order in Minerals and Mineral Product of India v. Government of Tamil Nadu and others, S. L. P. No. 1180 of 1991 dated 21. 8. 1995; and (vi) Order in S. Baskaran v. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu and another. W. A. Nos. 1026 of 1995 etc. , dated 8. 11. 1995.