S GANAPATHY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The writ petitioner in W.P. 15863/98 is the appellant before us as the said writ petition was dismissed by the order of the learned single Judge on 24-12-1998. The learned Counsel for the appellant strongly contended that the appellant was not permitted to carry on the quarrying operations in spite of lease granted to him as there were always disturbances. Under the circumstances, the learned single Judge ought to have granted the relief sought for exceeding the period of lease for 3 years to carry on the sand quarry in R.S. No. 135/1 over an extent of 5.00.0 hectares in Kilinjikuppam Part II, Cuddalore.

(2.) The learned single Judge having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner dismissed the writ petition. In paragraph 5 of the said order of the learned single Judge, it is stated thus :-

(3.) We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. The learned single Judge in the order under appeal in paragraphs 4 ad 5 has considered both the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant. The learned single Judge has pointed out that the representation, if any, made only could be considered by the authorities. From the facts stated above, it cannot be disputed that the appellant was put in possession of the land in question. May be he was not able to carry on the quarrying operation for a full period because of disturbances. But that is a question of fact. That apart, in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court aforementioned, it is not open to the appellant to contend otherwise now to say that the lease period must be extended on the ground that because of disturbances he was not allowed to carry on the quarrying operations. As regards the representation, the learned single Judge as of fact found that such representation was not made, and the impugned order in the writ petition could not be interfered with. The learned Counsel for the appellant persuades us to say that at least if representation is made now that could be considered on merits and in accordance with law. While asserting that such representation was made, it is stated that there was a report of the Tahsildar on that account. In view of these submissions, there appears to be a controversy as to whether the representation was made by the appellant. We think it is not necessary to go into the matter further in this regard. We do not find any good or valid ground to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. Hence, we dismiss the Writ Appeal. However, we permit the appellant to make a fresh representation now to the respondents and in the event any such representation is made, the authorities shall consider the same and dispose it off in accordance with law within 8 weeks from the date of making representation. As regards the Tahsildar's report on which the appellant relies, it is open to him to place a copy of the said report before the Authorities along with the representation. Consequently C.M.P. No. 136 of 1999 is also dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.