G SUBRAMANI Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has sought for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the proceedings of the fist respondent and further directing him to permit the petitioner to quarry for a further period of one year 2 months and 12 days and for further orders.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:

(3.) IT is further stated that the present writ petition praying for extension of lease period is not maintainable. The first respondent passed orders as per sub rule (8) of Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. Hence, there is no illegality in the order. Further, the first respondent and his authorized officers are empowered to enter into any lease hold area and to verify the accounts maintained in their premises. Further, the District Collector has no power to extend the lease beyond the original date of expiry of lease. The subject quarry area was ordered to be taken over by the Forest Department and hence, further extension is totally not possible.