State Of Tamil Nadu vs Hind Stone Etc on 5 February, 1981
Aggrieved by the said order to the extent that full
three year lease was not granted by the Director amended
Rules dated 19.12.96, the appellant filed the writ petition
in the High Court. He contended that when the Director
applied the amended rules dated 19.12.1996 which were issued
in GOMs No.235, so far as seigniorage was concerned, the
Director should have also given the benefit of the amendment
to Rule 8(8)(a) which stated that the lease should run for a
period of three years form the date of the execution of the
lease deed. The writ petition was contested by the
respondents before the learned Single Judge.
The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ
petition observed that the auction notice specified a
particular period namely, 1.1.95 to 31.3.98 and, therefore,
the appellant could not claim that the three year period was
to run as per the amended Rule 8(8)(a), that the amendment
was prospective in nature and was not applicable to leases
which had already been processed and rejected the Collector
earlier, - in this case on 22.3.1995. Merely because the
appellate order was passed subsequent to the amendment of
the rules in GOMs No.235 dated 19.12.1996, the appellant
could not seek the benefit of the amendment. Before the
learned single Judge, the appellant relied upon the judgment
of this Court in State of Tamilnadu vs. Hind Stone [1981
(3) SCR 742] for the proposition that if rules were amended
during the pendency of an application for the grant of a
mining lease, the said rules should be applied to such
pending applications. The said decision was distinguished
by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the
appellant's application was rejected by the Collector on
22.3.1995 long before the rules came into force on
19.12.1996 and that the pendency of the appeal by the rime
the emended rules came into force, was not a sufficient
reason for applying the amendment. So far as the appellate
order of the Director asking the appellant to pay
seigniorage as per the amended rule was concerned, the
learned Single Judge justified the said charge on the ground
that the said fee was leviable form 1.4.1997 to 31.3.1998.
On these grounds, the writ petition was dismissed.
When the appellant appealed before the Division
Bench the learned Judges too distinguished the decision of
the Supreme Court in Hind Stone [1981 (2) SCR 742]. The
Bench also held that the new rules did not apply. The Bench
was also of the view that the value of the sand by the time
the appellate order came to be passed on 1.4.97 would have
been more than what the appellant offered at the time of the
tender of 21.3.1995 and that, therefore, in case the appeal
were to be allowed, the interests of the State would suffer.
For all these reasons, the appeal was dismissed.
In this appeal before us, it was contended by the
learned senior counsel of the appellant Shri K.R. Choudhary
that the learned Single judge and the Division Bench as also
the Director (second respondent) were wrong in not applying
the amended rule in GOM No. 235 dated 10.12.1996.