ORDER
D. Murugesan, J.
1. By consent of both the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final hearing and disposed of by this order.
2. The District Collector, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil, the first respondent herein, published a notice in Kanyakumari District Gazette Extraordinary issue No.2 dated 24.1.2003, inviting sealed tender applications for the grant of lease to the successful bidder/tenderer to quarry stones from the Government poromboke lands situate in Marungoor village in Agastheeswaram Taluk and Thazhakudi village in Thovalai Taluk, Kanyakumari District.
3. The public auction was conducted on 17.2.2004. The petitioner also participated in the said auction. He offered a sum of Rs.29,25,000/- as one time lease amount for the stone quarry situate in S.F.No.720 Block No.3, admeasuring 4.00.0 hectares of Marungoor village, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District for the lease period of ten years. As the said amount offered by the petitioner was the highest in public auction, he was declared as the highest bidder. As per the terms and conditions of notice,immediately after the offer is accepted, 10% of the bid amount has to be paid. There is no dispute that the petitioner has paid 10% of the bid amount on the same day, as could be seen from para 6 of the impugned order. As per clause 8 of the Tender Notification, the balance 90% of the lease amount shall be remitted within seven days from the date of receipt of confirmation notice from the respondents.
4. On deposit of 10% of the lease amount, the petitioner was called upon to pay the balance of 90% of the lease amount by notice dated 18.2.2004 issued by the District Collector. The said notice was received by the petitioner on 20.2.2004. There is no dispute as to the receipt of notice by the petitioner on 20.2.2004. As per the notice dated 18.2.2004, the petitioner has to deposit the balance of Rs. 26,07,500/- within seven days from the date of receipt of notice in State Bank of India. It is also seen that failure to deposit the said amount within the stipulated period, in terms of Rule 8(5)(vii) of Tamil Nadu Mines and Mineral Concession Rules, the petitioner has to forego EMD as well as 10% of the lease amount already paid.
5. According to the petitioner, on 26.2.2004 he has paid a sum of Rs.20,27,200/- by cash. For the balance of Rs.5,80,300/- he has obtained 12 Demand Drafts from 13.2.2004 to 16.2.2004 and the same were produced before the District Collector, Nagercoil. After accepting the demand drafts, an endorsement has been made to the effect that the same may be credited into Government account. However, by the impugned order, 10% of the lease amount paid by the petitioner as well as the EMD has been forfeited on the ground that the petitioner has not deposited the entire balance amount of 90% of the lease amount within seven days from the date of receipt of notice.
6. Mr. Sanjeevi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that as far as the petitioner is concerned, he has remitted the Government chalans on 26.2.2004 and the demand drafts taken by the petitioner for Rs. 5,80,300/- were handed over to the District Collector which were received by them on 26.2.2004, merely because the same were credited to the Government Account after two days i.e. on 28.2.2004, the petitioner cannot be found fault and as such, invoking Rule 8(5)(vii)by the District Collector cannot be sustainable.
7. Mr. M.G.H. Varadharajan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents on the other hand, has submitted that it is not true that the petitioner has produced the demand drafts before the District Collector on 26.2.2004. He has also submitted that since the petitioner has not remitted the balance amount of Rs. 5,80,300/- within seven days from the date of receipt of notice, he is not entitled to the execution of lease deed in his favour.
8. I have given due consideration to the rival submissions.
9. In terms of Clause 8 of the Tender Notice, the petitioner has to deposit 10% of the lease amount and also the EMD immediately after the auction is held. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner has paid 10% of the lease amount and EMD on the same day. The dispute is only in respect of the payment of 90% of the lease amount. The petitioner was issued with a notice dated 18.2.2004, calling upon him to pay the balance amount of Rs.26,07,500/- representing 90% of the lease amount. Insofar as payment of cash of Rs. 20,27,200/- on 26.2.2004 is concerned again there is no dispute. The dispute is in respect of the payment of balance of Rs. 5,80,300/-. From page 13 of the Typed-set it is seen that the petitioner has obtained demand drafts for Rs. 5,80,300/- (Govt. Chalan(G&M)) which were endorsed by the State Bank of India on 26.2.2004. it also shows that the petitioner has obtained 12 demand drafts between 16.2.2004 to 16.2.2004 for Rs. 5,80,300/-. From page 11 of the Typed-set it is seen that those demand drafts have been submitted to the District Collector on 26.2.2004. A perusal of the file produced by the Additional Government Pleader would show that though the petitioner has only produced the Chalan before the District Collector, from the Typed-set of papers (page 15 to 22) it is seen that the petitioner’s demand drafts were infact received by the District Collector on 26.2.2004 and an endorsement has been made to the effect that the same may be credited into Government Account. From the counter affidavit it is seen that though in para 3 the receipt of 90% of the lease amount was denied, in para 4 it is stated that “The Writ Petitioner/ highest bidder was also informed that the demand drafts amount not credited into the Government on 26.2.2004 itself, but the Writ Petitioner requested endorsement only and he has also stated that the duty of the highest bidder to remit the amount on 26.02.2004 itself. Hence, necessary endorsement was made on 26.2.2004 and the demand drafts handed over to the highest bidder/Writ Petitioner for remittance”. From the above averments it is seen that the demand drafts were produced by the petitioner before the District Collector. Further, an endorsement has been made to the effect that “may be credited into Government Account”. In such circumstances, the contention that the petitioner has not produced the demand drafts for Rs. 5,80,300/- before the District Collector within the seven days from the date of receipt of notice cannot be accepted. When once the demand draft is handed over to the Officer, it is the duty of the Officer to credit the same into the Government Account. I am at loss to understand as to how the District Collector could return the demand drafts handed over to the petitioner for crediting into Government Account. Of course, the demand drafts were credited into Government Account on 28.2.2004 i.e. one day after the expiry of seven days. What is relevant for consideration is as to whether the petitioner has handed over the demand drafts within the stipulated period and not the date on which the same were credited into Government Account. In this case, the petitioner has produced the demand drafts for the balance amount of Rs. 5,80,300/- before the District Collector on 26.2.2004. In view of the above, I am of the considered view that the impugned order cannot be sustained as the payment is made within the period of seven days from the date of receipt of notice i.e. on 26.2.2004 from the date of receipt of notice on 20.2.2004. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The respondents are directed to execute the lease deed in favour of the petitioner for a period of ten years with reference to the stone quarry situate in S.F. No. 720 Block No.3, ad-measuring 4.00.0 hectares of Marungoor Village, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P. Nos. 11654 and 11655/2004 are closed.