DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERODE DISTRICT Vs. S.S.ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellant/State in W.A.Nos.757 and 758 of 2011 and learned counsel for the respondent/sub-lessee in W.A.Nos.757 and 758 of 2011 and appellant in W.A.No.1326 of 2011.

(2.) The appeals question the correctness of the impugned common judgment dated 15.11.2010, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petitions of the respondents, M/s.S.S.Enterprises, the lessee and R.Panneer Selvam, the sub-lessee, holding that the exercise undertaken by the appellant/State to cancel the quarrying lease vide order dated 11.07.2010 was not in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 and in particular, the provisions of Rule 36 (5) (h) would not be attracted, inasmuch as the action had been taken after the period of expiry of the lease.

(3.) The learned Single Judge further held that sofar as the sub- lessees or agents were concerned, it was open to the appellants/State to take action against them in terms of Rule 36-A (5) of the 1959 Rules. The aforesaid two provisions, namely, Rule 36 (5) (h) and Rule 36-A(5) are extracted hereunder for ready reference: