LexM.P. RAM MOHAN RAJA versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A M.P. RAM MOHAN RAJA -" - v. STA TE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. APRIL 25, 2007 B [A.K. MATHUR AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959; Rules 8C and 39: • ,. c Minerals-Quarry /ease-Power of State Government to grant/renew- prohibition in terms of Rule BC and relaxation in terms of Rule 39- Application for grant of /ease-Rerea/ing of Rule 39 during pendency of the application-Rejection of application-Challenged by applicant after inordinate delay of more than 6 years-Dismissed by High Court-On appeal, Held: There was no justification for the petitioner/applicant to have waited D for so long in challenging the order of dismissal of application for Mining flights-Besides, no person has vested right to grant mining and mineral /ease-Since the rule under which the applicant sought direction for 1 consideration has already been repealed, the basis on which the order was passed has been totally knocked out-Since R.39 was not in existence, it E could not have been possible for the authorities to have acceded to the request of the writ petitioner. Appellant applied for grant of quarry lease in the Industries Department of the State Government of Tamil Nadu under Rule 39 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. Rule 39 of the Rules conferred power on F the State Government to grant or renew quarry lease or permission in special cases. The writ petitioner approached the High Court by filing a writ Petition y praying for direction to the State Government to dispose of his application made under Rule 39 of the Rules. The High Court directed the State Government to consider the application of the writ petitioner and dispose of the same within a period of four weeks and also directed the State Government G to maintain status quo, in the meantime, Rule 39 was repealed by the State Government Consequently, the application of the writ petitioner came to be '::: rejected by the State Government vide its order dated 8.10.1996. The District : Collector put certain lands for auction including the land for which the writ petitioner had applied for grant of lease. After seven years, the writ petitioner i H 576 M.P.RAMMOHANRAJAv.STATEOFTAMILNADU 577 ~ filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order A dated 8.10.1996 and to direct the first respondent-State of Tamil Nadu to consider the application of the writ petitioner for grant of lease for quarrying jelly and rough stone under Rule 39 of the Rules as it stood at the relevant time. By an interim order dated 27.2.2004, Single Judge of the High Court permitted the writ petitioner to carry on quarrying operation in the said land. B The order was challenged by the State Government by filing a Writ Appeal Single Judge of the High Court passed clarificatory order against which an ' appeal was preferred by the State Government but the same was also dismissed. , The interim order dated 27.2.224 passed by the Single Judge was challenged by a private party alleging that taking advantage of the order of the Single Judge the writ petitioner has unauthorisedly encroached upon the lease-hold c land granted in his favour and started quarrying operation in the land. Hence, both these matters were clubbed together by consent of parties and were disposed of by the High Court by dismissing the writ petition of the appellant. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court D HELD: 1.1. The Government on 8.10.1996 passed an order in pursuance of the direction given by the High Court rejecting the application of the applicant, same was challenged after inordinate delay i.e. on 27.4.2003 by the writ petitioner, therefore, the writ pedtion was hopelessly belated. E [Para 8) [582-A-Bl 1.2. The High Court has rightly affirmed the objection of the respondents. When the application of the writ petitioner under Rule 39 was rejected on 8.10,1996 by the State Government pursuant to the direction given by the High Court. the writ petitioner waited up to 27.4.2003 and filed a belated F writ petition. But strangely enough, the writ petition was entertained and an h1terim order was passed and it was not interfered despite the State Government raising an objection. It was only when the third party who felt IJlllet'ed by the said interim order because the writ petitioner on account of this interim order started interfering with his area, that the matter was G
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.