S KRISHNAMOORTHY Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE orders challenged in these cases are that of the District Collector, the first respondent herein, dated 5.11.2008 rejecting the request of the petitioners for the purpose of extending the period of stone quarrying for another five years as per the amended Rule 8(8) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959.

(2.) IN W.P.No.27030 of 2008, the petitioner was granted lease for quarrying rough stone jelly in respect of Government poramboke land in survey No.102/6 (part 5) to the extent of 3.00.0 hectares, Gajjelnaickenpatty village, Salem taluk and District for a period of five years from 20.10.2003.

(3.) IT is the clear case of the petitioners that what was granted to them was virgin quarry and not an existing quarry. However, the first respondent, District Collector filed counter affidavit wherein, while admitting the fact of grant of licence and also that the petitioners were the highest bidders based on which the lease was given and that the lease originally granted for five years expired in October, 2008, the first respondent has no way chosen to substantiate that the survey numbers in respect of which the quarry licence was granted were existing quarries. Except a bald denial that what was given was not a virgin quarry, there are no particulars available in the counter affidavit and no documents are also produced to show that before 2003, the same lands were granted lease to third parties for quarrying operations. In the absence of any material to be placed before this Court, it is not possible to accept the mere denial made by the first respondent in the counter affidavit that the lands were existing quarries.