DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND ORS Vs. S R PITCHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The three respondents in W.P. No. 9485 of 1989 are the appellants and the writ petitioner is the sole respondent herein. (Ranking of parties as in writ petition).

(2.) The petitioner filed the writ petition to quash the order of the first respondent Collector of Tiruchirapalli dated 30.6.1989 and to direct him to renew the lease in his favour for a further period of three years under Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 (hereinafter called as the Rules)

(3.) Petitioner claimed that he had taken on lease the sand quarry in Coleroon River in Madhavaperumal Koil Village in Lalgudi Taluk for three faslis (fasli 1396 to 1398) in public auction held on 14.7.1986 by the third respondent and confirmed by the first respondent by order dated 28.7.1986. As the lease was coming to end, on 22.3.1989 he applied to the first respondent under Rule, for renewal for a further period of three years. He also agreed to pay the lease amount for each succeeding year by an increase of 10%. Since he did not receive any reply to the said application, he sent another letter on 23.6.1989 as the lease was coming to an end on 30.6.1989. In spite of it, first respondent having not passed any order, he filed W.P.No. 8680 of 1989 for issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to renew the lease. By order dated 5.7.1989, this Court had directed the first respondent to dispose of the renewal applications filed by him on 22.3.1989 and 23.6.1989 within a period of eight weeks. First respondent was telegraphically informed about this order on 5.7.1989 itself. On 7.7.1989 he received an order dated 30.6.1989 from first respondent rejecting the renewal of lease as asked for. This was followed by a publication in the District Gazette of Tiruchirapalli dated 12.7.1989 proposing to hold an auction of the sand quarry on 20.7.1989. Even though in the impugned order it is stated that he has a right of appeal, since it is not efficacious remedy, he has filed the present writ petition for the relief as prayed for. As for the Government's decision spelt out in its letter dated 5.12.1984, even though he had asked for a renewal of lease for three years, he is entitled to have an extension of two years from 1.7.1989 to 30.6.1991 subject to such enhancement in lease amount for the extended period.