Madras High Court
P.Xavier vs The District Collector on 15 December, 2023
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
W.P.(MD) No.29180 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :15.12.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P.(MD) No.29180 of 2022
and
W.M.P.(MD) Nos.23113 & 23114 of 2022
P.Xavier ... Petitioner
Vs.
The District Collector,
Tiruchirapalli District,
Tiruchirapalli - 620 001. ... Respondent
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records of the respondent vide impugned order in Na.Ka.No.
1156/2022/Mineral dated 28.09.2022, and quash the same and consequently
the direct the respondent to grant an extension of lease to the petitioner in
the quarry site situated at Survey No. 629 (west) for 1.25.0 hectares situated
at Aniyappur Village, Manapparai Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District for period
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.29180 of 2022
of 5½ years considering the period in which the quarry was not in operation
for no fault of the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.Naveen Kumar Murthy
Senior Counsel
for Ms.S.Varsha
For Respondent : Mr.R.Baskaran
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.C.Satheesh
Government Advocate
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General assisted by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent.
2.The petitioner’s father Pitchamuthu was granted quarry lease on 04.06.2012. He was granted permission to quarry rough stone in the petition mentioned survey number which is a Government poramboke land for a period of ten years. The quarry operations were carried on without any impediment for about 4 1/2 years. Due to certain developments which need not be gone into for the present, the lease holder was prevented from Page 2 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.29180 of 2022 operating the quarry for about 5 1/2 years. In other words, with effect from 15.11.2016, quarry operations came to be a stand still. It is beyond dispute that the petitioner was not at fault. It was more on account of the statutory amendments and the directions issued by National Green Tribunal, quarry operations were stalled.
3.The petitioner's father passed away in the meanwhile. The petitioner applied to the authorities for corresponding extension of the lease period. In other words, the petitioner wanted the authorities to extend the lease period for 5 1/2 years more which represents the non-operative period. In this regard, the petitioner filed W.P(MD)No.7897 of 2022. The writ petition was disposed of on 26.04.2022 in the following terms:
“10.No prejudice would be caused to the respondent, if the petitioner's representation dated 01.04.2022 seeking for extension of quarry lease from
04.06.2022 to 08.11.2027, due to the non-operative period on account of mandatory necessity for Environmental Clearance, is considered on merits and in accordance with law, after affording a fair hearing to the petitioner, in the Page 3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.29180 of 2022 light of the decision of this Court, dated 09.11.2020 in WP. (MD)Nos.9133 and 9137 of 2020 in the case of T.Vijay vs. The District Collector, Thoothukudi District, as well as the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Electrosteel Steels Limited vs. Union of India and others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1247 and Pahwa Plastics Pvt. Ltd. And Another vs. Dastak NGO and others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 362, after the petitioner obtains Environmental Clearance from the SEIAA, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
11.For the foregoing reasons, this Court directs the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 01.04.2022 and pass final orders, once the petitioner obtains Environment Clearance from the SEIAA, after affording a fair hearing to the petitioner including granting him the right of personal hearing, in the light of the following decision of this Court dated 09.11.2020 passed in WP.(MD)Nos.9133 and 9137 of 2020 in the case of T.Vijay vs. The District Collector, Thoothukudi District, and in the light of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Electrosteel Steels Limited vs. Union of India and others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1247 and Pahwa Plastics Pvt. Ltd. And Another vs. Dastak NGO and others Page 4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.29180 of 2022 reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 362, within a period of ten (10) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” Pursuant to the direction given by this Court, the District Collector, Thiruchirappalli took up the petitioner's application for consideration. Vide order dated 28.09.2022, the petitioner's request was negatived. Challenging the same, the present writ petition came to be filed.
4.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and called upon this Court to grant relief as prayed for.
5.The learned Additional Advocate General called upon this Court to sustain the impugned order. He pointed out that the petitioner cannot seek extension of lease period as a matter of right. He pointed out that in view of the Rule 42 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, clearance from SEIAA (State Environment Impact Assessment Authority) is mandatory. Since the petitioner is not having any clearance, the District Collector had justified in negativing the petitioner's request for Page 5 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.29180 of 2022 extension. He also pointed out that it is not as if the lease holder was taken by surprise. Originally the petitioner was given 180 days to approach SEIAA for clearance; it was later extended to 630 days. Since the petitioner failed to obtain such clearance, he cannot blame the District Collector for passing the impugned order. The learned Additional Advocate General also attempted to distinguish the case laws relied on by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. He called upon to this Court to dismiss the writ petition.
6.I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. Two aspects are beyond dispute. The lease was for a period of ten years. The lease holder could not operate the lease for 4 1/2 years for reasons beyond his control. The only question is whether he is entitled to a corresponding extension of the lease period on that score. A learned Judge of this Court vide order dated 11.03.2019 in W.P.No.34852 of 2018 held that when the non-operative period was purely on account of action initiated by the authorities and the lease holder was prevented from quarrying land for a given period, in all fairness the authority concerned Page 6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.29180 of 2022 must grant extension to the lease holder. The learned Judge further observed when the lease holder had paid the entire lease amount for quarrying for a period of ten years, cutting short the said period for reasons not attributed to the lease holder, would result in causing loss and hardship and that the same should be redressed in all fairness by the licensing authority. To the same effect, is the order dated 09.11.2020 passed by another learned Judge of this Court in W.P(MD)Nos.9133 & 9137 of 2020. After referring to Rule 8(8)(ii) of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, the learned Judge held that the rejection of the request for extension of the lease period is arbitrary. My attention is also drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble First Bench made in W.A.No.918 of 2014 dated 24.07.2014.
7.I am satisfied that a consistent view has been taken by several benches of this Court that for the non-operative period, the lease holder entitled to corresponding extension, if he is not at fault. I take judicial notice of the fact that the issue as regards the applicability of Rule 42 attained finality only in the year 2020. Rule 42 reads as follows: Page 7 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.29180 of 2022 “42.Submission of environment clearance for the grant of quarry lease for minor minerals including Granite:- (i) The approved mining plan shall be forwarded to the applicant for obtaining environment clearance from the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority or the Ministry of Environment and Forests, as the case may be.
(ii) On submission of approved mining plan and environment clearance from the said authorities, the Government or the District Collector, as the case may be, shall grant the quarry lease.
(iii) Where quarrying operations for Minor Minerals including granites have been undertaken before the commencement of these rules without environment clearance, such holder of minor mineral including granite leases shall submit the environment clearance within six hundred and thirty days from the date of commencement of these rules.
(iv) When the existing holders of Minor Mineral leases including granite failed, to submit the environment clearance within the stipulated period, the District Collector or the Government, as the case may be shall cancel the lease after giving an opportunity of Personnel hearing.” Page 8 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.29180 of 2022 Clearance from SEIAA is a must. Therefore, without getting clearance from SEIAA, the petitioner cannot seek extension of lease period. The petitioner cannot take his own sweet time to obtain such clearance from SEIAA.
8.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that he would obtain an appropriate clearance from SEIAA within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioner is able to obtain clearance from SEIAA within the aforesaid period, the respondent will extend the petitioner's lease by 5 years and 6 months more.
9.This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction to the respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
15.12.2023
NCC :No
Internet :Yes
Index :No
MGA
Page 9 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.29180 of 2022
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
MGA
To
The District Collector,
Tiruchirapalli District,
Tiruchirapalli 620 001.
W.P.(MD)No.29180 of 2022
15.12.2023
Page 10 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis