V. KARNAL DURAI versus THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TUTICORIN AND ANR.

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 206 · Decided: 01-12-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. VENKATASWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
V. KARNAL DURA! 
v. 
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TUTICORIN AND ANR. 
DECEMBER I, 1998 
B 
[K. VENKATASWAMI AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] 
Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 : 
Rules 8 (8) (a), 8-A-Quarry Lease-Commencement of period-
C Pending appeal against rejection of appellant's tender, amendments regarding 
commencement of lease period and seigniorage introduced-Held, amendments 
would apply to appeal as well-Period for which lease is granted is to be 
counted from the date of execution of lease deed-Seigniorage would also 
be paid as per amended rules. 
D 
Tenders were invited by the respondents for grant of lease of sand 
quarry from 1.1.1995 to 31.3.1998. The appellant's tender, though quoting 
the highest offer, was rejected by the respondents on the ground that the 
offer was less than the accepted price as estimated by the department. The 
appellant filed an appeal before the Director of Geology and Mines who 
E allowed the appeal on 1.4.1997, but granted the lease only for the remaining 
period from 1.4.1997 upto 31.3.1998. The Director, however, applied the 
amended provisions of Rule 8-A of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession 
Rules, 1959 introduced by GOMS 235 dated 29.12.1996 by which additional 
seigniorage fees were payable in addition to the lease amount. The appellant 
filed a writ petition before the High Court contending that when the Director 
F applied the amended Rules so far as seigniorage was concerned, he should 
have also given the benefit of the provisions ofamended Rule 8(8) (a) which 
stated that the lease period should run for a period of 3 years from the date 
of the execution of the lease deed. The writ petition was dismissed by the 
Single Judge of the High Court holding that the auction notice specified a 
G particular period and therefore the appellant could not claim the benefit of 
the amended Rule as the amendment was prospective in nature and the 
application of the appellant had been rejected prior to the amendment. The 
writ appeal of the appellant was dismissed. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the 
present appeal. 
H 
It was contended for the appellant that the amended Rule 8(8) (a) of the 
206 
V. K. DURAi v. D.C. TUTICORIN 
207 
Rules provided that lease would be granted for a period of 3 years from the A 
date of execution of the lease and, therefore, as the amendment had come into 
force prior to the dismissal of the appeal by the Director, the Director as well 
as the High Court erred in not applying the amended provision. It was 
further contended that the High Court also erred in not applying the judgment 
of this Court rendered in State of Tamil Nadu v. Hind Stone,· 1981 (3) SCR B 
742, which laid down that the application for grant of lease of minerals under 
the Rules had to be disposed of on the basis of such Rules as may be in force 
at the time the application was disposed of and not by the Rules in force at 
the time the application for grant of lease was made. 
It was contended for the respondents that the tender being for a specific C 
period from 1.4.1995 to 31.3.1998, it was not permissible for the appellant 
to seek a lease for the period beyond 31.3.1998. It was submitted that the 
Rules were preceded by administrative instructions dated 12.3.1997 which 
stated that if any application had been processed before the commencement 
of the new rules then such application should not be disposed of on the basis 
of the amended rules. 
D 
Allowing the appeal, this Court. 
HELD : I.I. The amended Rule 8(8) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Minor 
Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 which came into force on 19.12.1996 
applied to the appeal which came to be disposed of on 1.4.1997. Accordingly, E 
the period of 3 years is to be counted from the date of execution of the lease 
deed. The Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court erred in 
not applying the judgment of this Court in Hind Stone* to the appeal that 
was pending before the appellate authority. The advertisement having been 
issued in order to implement the rules, the terms of the advertisement F 
cannot be viewed in isolation. They have necessarily to be read in conjunction 
with the rules. Apart from the lease amount seigniorage fee or deed rent or 
other charges have to be paid. [214-E-F-G; 213-A] 
*State of Tamil Nadu v. Hind Stone, [1981] 2 SCR 742 , relied on. 
1.2. Though the latter part of Administrative instructions dated 
12.3.1997 states that ifthe processing ofth.e application is complete

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.