Holding

The petition was hopelessly belated, no vested right existed, and the repeal of Rule 39 eliminated the basis for relief, so the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

The appellant applied in 1996 for a quarry lease under Rule 39 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. The High Court directed the State to decide the application within four weeks, but the rule was repealed on 27 June 1996 and the application was rejected on 8 October 1996. The appellant waited until April 2003 to file a writ petition challenging that rejection, seeking a certiorari and direction to consider his original application. The Supreme Court held that the petition was hopelessly belated, that no vested right to a mineral lease existed, and that the repeal of Rule 39 removed the legal basis for any relief. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition filed after an inordinate delay of more than six years can be entertained.
Whether the repeal of Rule 39 extinguishes any vested right of the applicant to a quarry lease.
Whether the High Court erred in granting interim relief despite the delay and the repeal of the governing rule.

Subjects

delaylachesmineral leaseRule 39Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rulesvested rightrepealwrit petitioncertiorariinterim orderpublic interest

Judgment

A M.P. RAM MOHAN RAJA
v.
-" -
STATE 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: ,.•
Minerals-Quarry /ease-Power of State Government to grant/renew-
c 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 ofmore 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consideration has already been repealed, the basis on which the order was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
could not have been possible for the authorities to have acceded to the
E 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
the State Government to grant or renew quarry lease or permission in special
F 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.
The order was challenged by the State Government by filing a Writ Appeal
B
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
entertained by the High Court and it was clubbed up together. There was no
G
« justification for the writ petitioner to have waited for a long time. Once the
order was passed on 8.10.1996, then there was no need for the writ petitioner
to have waited for such a long time. Thus, Court is in full agreement with the
view taken by the High Court. However, the High Court despite the fact that
the writ petition was belated and suffered from !aches entered. into the H
578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A controversy on the merits also and took the view that when Rule 39 was deleted I
within four weeks of the direction to the State Government to dispose of the
application of the writ petitioner, there was no option with the Collector but to
reject the application as the rule which was in force was repealed, therefore,
the basis on which the order was passed was knocked out. Therefore, the High
B Court declined to grant any relief to the writ petitioner and dismissed the
writ petition on merit also. (Para 8) (582-B-E)

1.3 So far as the question of delay is concerned, no hard and first rule
can be laid down and it will depend on the facts of each case. In the present
case, the facts stare at the face of it that on 8.10.1996 an order was passed by
C the Collector pursuant to the order passed by the High Court, rejecting the
application of writ petitioner for consideration of the grant of mining lease.
The writ petitioner sat tight over the matter and did not challenge the same
up to 2003. This is on the face of it appears to be very serious. A person who
can sit tight for such a long time or no justifiable reason, cannot be given
any benefit. [Para 11] (583-E-F)
D
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd & Anr. v. Dolly Das, (1999) 4
SCC 450 and Mis. Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company Ltd v. District Board, )
Bhojpur & Ors. etc., (1992) 2 SCC 598, relied on.

1.4. Rule 39 of the Rules was already repealed on 27.6.1996 and the
E ground reality had also changed. So far as grant of mining and mineral lease
is concerned, no person has a vested right in it. There is no quarrel on the
legal proposition that if certain rights have been decided on the basis of the
law which was obtaining at that time, that will not nullify the judicial decision
unless the bases are taken out. In the present case, the rule under which the
F writ petitioner sought direction for consideration of his application has already
been repealed within the time frame directed by the High Court. Therefore
the basis on which the order was passed has been totally knocked out. Rule
39 on the basis of which direction was given was not in existence. Therefore,
it could not have been possible for the authorities to have acceded to the request
G of the writ petitioner. More so, no one has a vested right in mineral lease.
(Para 13] (584-E-G)

State of Tamil Nadu v. Mis. Hind Stone & Ors., (1981) 2 SCC 205 and
P. T.R. Exports (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union ofIndia, (1996) 5 SCC 268, relied
OIL

H
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2138 of2007.
M.P. RAM MOHAN RAJA v. STATE OFTAMIL NADU [A.K. MATHUR, J.] 579

From the Judgment and Order dated 13.07.2006 of the High Court of A
Judicature at Madras in W.P. No. 13791 of2003.

K. Subramanian, E.C. Agrawala, Mahesh Agaiwa~ Rishi Agrawala, Varun
Mathur, Gaurav Goel and Neha Aggarwal for the Appellant.

K.K. Mani and R. Nedumaran for the Respondents. B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

A.K. MATHUR, J. I. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Division C
Bench of the Madras High Court dated 13.7.2006 whereby the Division Bench
of the High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant- M.P.
Ram Mohan Raja and disposed of the writ appeal filed by S. Ramilarasi in view
of the affidavit filed by the State Government. Hence, aggrieved against the
order passed by the Division Bench dismissing the writ petition the present
appeal has been filed by the appellant. D
3. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are the appellant- writ petitioner
(hereinafter to be referred to as the writ petitioner) applied to the State
Government in the Industries Department on 2.2.1996 under Rule 39 of the
Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 (hereinafter to be referred E
to as 'the Rules') for grant of quarry lease for quarrying jelly and rough stone
for a period of 20 years from the poramboke lands over an extent of 3.64
hectares in survey No. 782/2 and over an extent of2.36 hectares in survey No.
777/4A of Ayyamkollankondam village, Rajapalayam Taluk, Kamarajar District.
Rule 39 of the Rules conferred power on the State Government to grant or
renew quarry lease or permission in special cases. The validity of the said rule F
was affirmed by this Court in Premium Granites & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu
& Ors., [1994] 2 SC 691. This Court held the rule as valid but the action of
the State Government can always be subject to challenge. The writ petitioner
approached the High Court of Madras by filing writ Petition No.6931 of 1996
making a grievance that his application under Rule 39 of the Rules was not G
disposed and as such he prayed for a direction to the State Government to
dispose of his application made under Rule 39 of the Rules. By order dated
14.6.1996 the High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the State
Government to consider the application of the writ petitioner and dispose of
the same within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of
the order and also directed the State Government to maintain status quo in H
580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.
../
A the meantime. However, on 27.6.1996 within a period of four weeks Rule 39
was repealed by the State Government. Consequently, the application of the
writ petitioner came to be rejected by order dated 8.10.1996. Subsequently, the
District Collector put certain lands for auction in 2003. One of the two lands
for which the writ petitioner had applied for grant of lease, was also put to
auction. After seven years, the writ petitioner filed the present writ petition
B being W.P.No.13791 of 2003 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order
dated 8.10.1996 and to direct the first respondent to consider the application
of the writ petitioner dated 2.2.1996 for grant of lease for quarrying jelly and
rough stone under Rule 39 of the Rules as it stood at the relevant time.

c 27.2.2004
4. The writ petition was admitted on 29.4.2003. By an interim order dated
learned Single Judge permitted the writ petitioner to carry on quarrying
operation of jelly and rough stone in the said land. The said order was
challenged by the State Government in Writ Appeal No.1750 of2004. Thereafter,
learned Single Judge passed some clarificatory order against which an appeal
was preferred by the State Government but the same was also dismissed. The
D interim order dated 27.2.2004 passed by learned Single Judge was challenged
by a private party namely, S.Tamilarasi in Writ Appeal No.453 of2006 alleging
that taking advantage of the order of learned Single Judge the writ petitioner
has unauthorisedly encroached upon the lease-hold land granted in his favour
and started quarrying operation in the said land. Hence, both these matters
were clubbed together by consent of parties and were disposed of by the
E
High Court by the common impugned order.

5. rt may be relevant to mention here that earlier Rule 8-C of the Rules
was introduced in 1977 by which grant of lease for quarrying black granite
in favour of private persons was prohibited. rt was clearly stipulated that
F lease could only be granted in favour of Corporations wholly owned by the 1'
State Government. The validity of Rule 8-C was challenged before the Madras
High Court and ultimately, the matter reached before this Court and in State
of Tamil Nadu v. Hind Stone, AIR (1981) SC 711 this Court allowed the State
appeal and upheld the validity of Rule 8-C. However, this Court observed that
some of the applications which were pending before introduction of this
G prohibition, may be dealt with in accordance with the Rules but at the same
time it is clarified that no one has vested right for grant of lease in mining. .- '
Thereafter, Rule 39 was introduced on 8.3.1993 and that rule provided power
to the State Government for relaxation. rn the interest of mineral development
and in public interest the Government may for the reasons to be recorded,
H grant or renew a lease or permission to quarry any mineral. The validity of
M.P. RAMMOHANRAJAv. STATEOFTAMILNADU[A.K. MATHUR,J.] 581
\.
Rule 39 was also challenged but it was upheld by this Court in Premium A
Granites & Anr. (supra).

6. A number of applications were filed under Rule 39 of the Rules before
the State Government for grant of lease. Government granted lease in some
cases relaxing the power of prohibition but some applications were rejected.
Hence, a batch of writ petitions was filed before the Madras High Court. The B
High Court allowed certain number of writ petitions by order dated 17.3 .1995
and issued directions that all pending applications should be disposed of as
far as possible within a period of twelve weeks from the date of the order. The
High Court further laid down that all future applications should be disposed
of as far as possible within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt C
of such applications. This order of the High Court passed on 17.3.1995 was
not challenged further and it attained finality.

7. The writ petitioner made an application under Rule 39 of the Rules
but his application was not disposed of within twelve weeks. Hence, he filed
the writ petition & the High Court passed an order on 2.5.1996 directing the D
State Government to expedite the disposal of the application of the writ
petitioner and to dispose the same within four weeks from the date of receipt
of a oopy of the order. Meanwhile, on 27.6.1996 within four weeks Rule 39 was
repealed. The State Government passed an order on 8.10.1996 rejecting the
application of the writ petitioner and the writ petitioner was asked to participate
in the tender cum auction to be conducted by the Collector for granting of E
quarry lease for the area applied by him. The writ petitioner did not pursue
the matter after the Government passed the order dated 8.10.1996 in pursuance
of the direction given by the High Court and the Collector while rejecting the
application of the writ petitioner held that since rule 39 has already been
repealed, therefore, the writ petitioner cannot be granted any lease in view of F
the changed circumstances. The writ petitioner did not challenge this order
till 2003 and suddenly woke up to file writ petition on 27.4.2003 being writ
petition No.13791 of2003 before the High Court. The High Court passed an
interim order on 29.4.2003 permitting the writ petitioner to continue with
quarrying operation on payment of lease amount quoted by the neighbouring
quarry owners. Though the Government preferred an appeal against the said G
order, it was rejected. But the private respondent who was affected by the
interim order filed a writ appeal against the said order alleging that the writ
. petitioner under the garb of interim order was interfering with the quarry
allotted to him. As such the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner and the
writ appeal were clubbed together. H
582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The first and foremost
question before us as was before the High Court, was of delay. The Government
on 8.10.1996 passed the order in pursuance to the direction given by the High
Court rejecting his application, same was challenged after inordinate delay i.e.
on 27.4.2003 by the present writ petition, therefore, the writ petition was
-
hopelessly belated. The High Court affinned the objection of the respondents
B and in our opinion, rightly so. When the application of the writ petitioner
under Rule 39 was rejected on 8.10.1996 by the State Government in pursuance
to the direction given by the High Court, the writ petitioner waited up to
27.4.2003 and filed a hopelessly belated writ petition. But strangely enough,
the said writ petition was entertained and an interim order was passed and
C it was not interfered despite the State Government raising an objection. It was
only when the third party who felt aggrieved by the said interim order
because the writ petitioner ort account of this interim order started interfering
with his area, that the matter was entertained by the High Court and it was
clubbed up together. We are satisfied that there was no justification for the
writ petitioner to have waited for a long time. Once the order was passed on
D 8.10.1996, then there was no need for the writ petitioner to have waited for
such a long time. We are in full agreement with the view taken by the High
Court. However, the High Court despite the fact that the writ petition was
belated and suffered from laches entered into the controversy on the merits
also and took the view that when Rule 39 was deleted within four weeks of
E the direction to the State Government to dispose of the application of the writ
petitioner, there was no option with the Collector but to reject the application
as the rule which was in force was repealed, therefore, the basis on which the
order was passed was knocked out. Therefore, the High Court declined to
grant any relief to the writ petitioner and dismissed the writ petition on merit
also.
F
9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the writ petition
should not be dismissed on the ground of delay. In support thereof, learned
counsel invited our attention to a decision of this Court in P.C. Sethi & Ors.
v. Union of India & Ors., AIR (I 975) SC 2164. In that case it was held that
G because the Government has held out hopes, therefore, the petition was not
liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay. In the case of K. Thimmappa
& Ors. v. Chairman, Central Board of Directors, State Bank ofIndia & Anr.,
[200 I) 2 SCC 259, their Lordships held that a petition cannot be rejected solely
on the ground of laches if it violates Article 14 of the Constitution and when
there is no infraction of Article 14, the question of delay in filing the petition +

H cannot be ignored. In the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. &
M.P.RAMMOHANRAJAv. STATEOFTAMILNADU(A.K. MATHUR,J.) 583
Anr. v. Dolly Das, (1999] 4 sec 450 it was held that delay itself cannot defeat A
the claim of the petitioner for relief unless the position of the respondent has
- been irretrievably altered or he has been put to undue hardship. In the case
of Mis. Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company Ltd v. District Board, Bhojpur
& Ors. etc., [ 1992] 2 SCC 598 their Lordships found that dismissal of the writ
petition in /imine was not proper. Since the demand of cess was made illegally
in 1967 and the suit was dismissed in 1971, their Lordships found that it was B
involving matter of serious consequence to the party, therefore delay was not
considered fatal in that case.

10. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents invited our
attention to a decision in State of Orissa v. Lochan Nayak (dead) by LRs., C
(2003] l 0 SCC 678. In this case, the question of allotment of land was involved
and the Commissioner rejected the allotment maue in 1984 against which
respondent filed writ petition in the High Court in 1992. The High Court
remanded the matter back to the Revenue Officer for consideration of the
matter afresh. Meanwhile, the allotment was further cancelled in 1992. This
Court held that due to in ordinate delay in filing the writ petition, the High D
Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition and accordingly, ".set
aside the order of the High Court.

11. So far as the question of delay is concerned, no hard and first rule
can be laid down and it will depend on the facts of each case. In the present
case, the facts stare at the face of it that on 8.10.1996 an order was passed E
by the Collector in pursuance to the order passed _by the High Court, rejecting
the application of the writ petitioner for consideration of the grant of mining
lease. The writ petitioner sat tight over the matter and did not challenge the
same up to 2003. This on the face of it appears to be very serious. A person
who can sit tight for such a long time for no justifiable reason, cannot be F
given any benefit.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when the High
Court passed the order on 14.6.1996, at that time Rule 39 was in existence.
Therefore, the case of the writ petitioner should have been decided by the
High Court as ifthe Rule had not been deletes or repealed. In support thereof, G
learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to the following
decisions of this Court.

(i) [1993] Supp 1SCC96(IJ) In the matter of: Cauvery Water Disputes
Tribunal.
H
584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) S S. C.R.
./ .....
A (ii) AIR (1994) SC I State of Haryana & Ors. v. The Karna/ Co-
op.Farmers' Society Limited etc.
(m) AIR (2003) SC 833 Beg Raj Singh v. State of UP. & Ors.

In the matter of Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, their Lordships held that
Legislature can change the law in general by changing the basis on which
B a decision given by court but it cannot affect setting aside the decision inter
parties itself. Similarly, in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. it was held that
decree of civil court and judicial order holding that certain lands and iinmovable
properties fell outside "shamilat deh" regulated by principal Act, subsequent
amendment directing Assistant Collector to decide the claim by ignoring them
C was held to be unconstitutional as it encroaches upon judicial power. In the
case of Beg Raj Singh, the petitioner was granted mining lease for 3 to 5 years
but the petitioner was erroneously granted lease for one year. It was held that
a right accrued to the petitioner to continue for a miniinum period of three
years in terms of the policy decision and it was held that it cannot be curtailed
because of lapse of time in litigation and on the ground that higher revenue
D would be earned by the Government by auctioning the mining rights. Therefore
the Court directed that the petitioner would be entitled to continue for a I
period of three years.

13. Now, coming to the merits of the writ petition we find that the rule
E was already repealed on 27 .6.1996 and the ground reality had also changed.
So far as grant of mining and mineral lease is concerned, no person has a
vested right in it. There is no quarrel on the legal proposition that if certain
rights have been decided on the basis of the law which was obtaining at that
time, that will not nullify the judicial decision unless the bases are taken out.
In the present case, the rule under which the writ petitioner sought direction
F for consideration of his application has already been repealed within the time
frame directed by the High Court. Therefore the basis on which the order was
passed has been totally knocked out. Rule 39 on the basis of which direction
was given was not in existence. Therefore, it could not have been possible
for the authorities to have acceded to the request of the writ petitioner. More
G so, no one has a vested right in mineral lease. In this connection it will be
more useful to refer to a decision of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. MJ
s. Hind Stone & Ors., [ 1981] 2 SCC 205. Their Lordships in the aforesaid case
observed as follows:

" The submission was that it was not open to the government to
H keep applications for the grant of leases and applications for renewal
M.P. RAM MOHAN RAJA v. STATEOFTAMILNADU(A.K. MATHUR,J.) 585

pending for a long time and then to reject them on the basis of Rule A
8-C notwithstanding the fact that the applications had been made long
prior to the date on which Rule 8-C came into force. While it is true
that such applications should be dealt with within a reasonable time,
it cannot on that account be said that the right to have an application
disposed of in a reasonable time clothes an applicant for a !ease with
a right to have the application disposed of on the basis of the rules B
in force at the time of the making of the application. No one has a
vested right to the grant or renewal of a lease and none can claim a
vested right to have an application for the grant or renewal of a lease
dealt with in a particular way, by applying particular provisions. In the
absence of any vested rights in anyone, an application for a lease has C
necessarily to be dealt with according to the rules in force on the date
of the disposal of the application despite the fact that there is a long
delay since the making of the application. We are, therefore, unable
to accept the submission of the learned counsel that applications for
the grant of renewal of leases made long prior to the date of G.0.Ms.
No.1312 should be dealt with as if Rule 8-C did not exist." D
Similarly in the case of P. T.R. Exports (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India,
[1996] 5 SCC 268 their Lordships reiterated the same position.

14. As a result of our above discussion, we find no merit in this appeal
and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. E
S.K.S. Appeal dismissed .

•