ORDER
A.R. Lakshmanan, J.
1. This writ petition is for quashing the order of the respondent dated 20.8.1992 and to direct the respondent to consider the renewal application of the petitioner for renewal as per the provisions of Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).
2. The petitioner is the manufacturer of crusher jelly which can be used for building construction and road making purposes, The respondent herein by proceedings dated 5.1.1973 has granted mining lease for quarrying jelly for ten years. The quarry is at Melur village, Kulathur taluk and the extent is 11.91 acres. The petitioner applied for renewal of lease by application dated 3.5.1982. The respondent by proceedings dated 16.11.1982 renewed the mining lease for a further period of five years from fasli years 1392 to 1396. Again, by application dated 23.4.1987, the petitioner sought for renewal of the lease and the respondent-extended the lease for a period of five years by proceedings dated 9.7.1987. The said lease also expired on 30.6.1992. As per Rule 9 of the Rules, the petitioner by letter dated 27.3.1992, applied for renewal of the lease for a further period often years.
3. The respondent viz. the then District Collector of Pudukottai passed the following order on 4.6.1992:
4. By order dated 29.7.1992 in W.P. No. 8026 of 19921 set aside the order of the respondent dated 4.6.1992 and directed the respondent to take the renewal application on file and dispose of the same on merits in the light of the observations contained therein. The direction given in that order is as under:
In the instant case there is no difficulty in holding that the application submitted by the petitioner for renewal of the lease for the period beyond 30.6.1992 is maintainable and the impugned order holding that a further period is not contemplated under the Rules cannot at all be sustainable. At the risk of repetition it had to be pointed out that the application of the petitioner has not been rejected on the ground it would not be in the interest of mineral development to grant a renewal nor had they been rejected on the ground that the lease amount was not reasonable. The only reason given in the impugned order being found unsustainable, there will be a writ of certiorarified mandamus as prayed for relating to the order of the respondent in Rc No. 826/92(M) dated 4.6.1991 The impugned order of the Collector is quashed and the Collector is directed to take the renewal application on file and dispose of the same on merits in the light of the observations indicated above. The Collector shall dispose of the renewal application within a period of one month from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is ordered on the above terms. No costs.
5. The respondent by her order dated 20.8.1992 has rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that by virtue of the amendment to the Rules, the power given to the District Collector has been taken away and that by virtue of the amendment, there is no provision for granting lease to the industries. Challenging the correctness of the aforesaid order, the present writ petition has been filed.
6. The order passed by the then District Collector of Pudukottai on 20.8.1992 is reproduced here under:
7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent by the present Collector stating that since old Rule 8(A) of the Rules, which empowered the Collector to grant lease to the industries had been deleted by G.O.Ms. No. 608, Industries, dated 2.9.1989 and since there is no provision under the Rules for grant of lease to industries, the request of the petitioner cannot be accepted. Mr. P. Sadasivam, learned Special Government Pleader, also raised the identical contention before me at the time of hearing.
8. The above contention raised on behalf of the respondent has to be mentioned only to be rejected. The then Collector of Pudukottai Mrs. Sheela Rani Sungath has not even taken pains to look into the Rules. Rule 8(A) in my opinion, is not applicable to the present case for the said Rule deals with the procedure for the grant of lease in respect of Red, Black, Pink, Grey, Green and any other coloured granite or any other rock for use as ornamental and decorative stones.
[Italics is mine]
9. There is no controversy that the petitioner has got an industry where he manufactures crusher jelly which can be used for building construction and road making purposes. Perhaps, rightly realising this position, the then Collector of Pudukottai did not refer to Rule 8(A) in her pleadings in W.P. No. 8026 of 1992. It is unfortunate that Mrs. Sheela Rani Shungath, the then District Collector of Pudukottai, had acted in a mechanical way and rejected the renewal application of the petitioner. The impugned order discloses total non-application of mind on the part of the then Collector of Pudukottai.
10. Further, Rule 8(c) of the Rules specifically contemplates that private persons would be granted lease for quarrying black granite for their existing industry. There is no controversy that the petitioner is having an industry for the last twenty years and he needs the black granite for manufacturing crusher jelly, which is used for constructing buildings and laying roads. No reference has been made by the District Collector either to Rule 8(C) or to Rule 9, which deals with renewal of lease. Under Rule 9, the Collector has to renew the lease. Hence, it is futile to contend that the District Collector has been denuded of the power to grant renewal of the lease. The reason given by the then Collector is also not bonafide. If really Rule 8 has been amended by G.O.Ms. No. 608, Industries, dated 2.9.1989, taking away the powers of the District Collector, nothing prevented the previous Collector of Pudukottai from bringing the same to my notice on 29.7.1992 when I passed the order in W.P. No. 8()26 of 1992. I am only referring to these facts to show the light hearted, casual and cavalier manner in which the then Collector of Pudukottai Mrs. Sheela Rani Shungath dealt with the renewal application of the petitioner in spite of my orders specifically directing her to consider the renewal application of the petitioner and pass orders on merits. It is unfortunate that the respondent /District Collector who passed the earlier order dated 4.6.1992 has failed to refer to the amended Rule 8(A) and rejected the renewal application on the ground that she has no powers to deal with the renewal application, under the amended Rule 8(A), especially having regard to the fact that Rule 8(A) was amended as early as 2.9.1989.
11. I have already found that the reliance placed by the District Collector on Rule 8(A), as amended by G.O.Ms. No. 608, Industries, dated 2.9.1989, is totally misconceived. On account of the mistake committed by the then District Collector of Pudukottai, the petitioner is put to the necessity of seeking redress from this Court at huge cost. Further, the petitioner’s industry has also come to a grinding halt.
12. It is the duty of the statutory authorities to adopt a constructive altitude and encourage industries instead of adopting, a negative approach. The mistake committed by the respondent has resulted in the closure of an industry for three years for no fault of the petitioner and because of incorrect and wrong understanding of the Rules and this has occasioned a great and grave injustice to the petitioner.
13. When I made the order in W.P. No. 8026 of 1992 on 29.7.1992, it was not brought to my notice by the respondent about the amendment. The aforesaid amendment was not even raised in the pleadings. Had the amendment been brought to my notice, appropriate orders would have been passed by me in accordance with the amended Rule 8 (A) of the Rules.
14. I find that Rule 9 will apply to the facts of the present case and that under the Rules as they exist now, industries, are entitled to the grant of lease for quarrying granite and the District Collectors vested with the authority to grant the renewal of lease under Rule 9.
15. Accordingly, I direct the present District Collector of Pudukottai to consider the renewal application of the petitioner in the light of the directions contained in my order dated 29.7.1992 in W.P. No. 8026 of 1992 and the directions given herein, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order either from this Court or from the petitioner, whichever is earlier. Orders shall be passed positively within four weeks as directed above.
16. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed with costs of Rs. 2,500 to be paid to the petitioner.