9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (10) TMI 267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1993 in respect of carrying on quarry operation in Survey No. 2 (Part) and Survey No. 61/1 (part), measuring in all an extent of 6.15 acres at Ettikuttapatti Village, Omalur Taluk, Salem District. 3. The averments made by the petitioner in W.P. No. 1835 of 1991 are as follows : - According to the petitioner, he participated in the public auction conducted by the Tahsildar of Omalur, and was declared as the highest and successful bidder in the auction held on 13.2.1989 for leasing out the stone quarries situate in Survey No. 2 (part) over an extent of 5.15 acres in Adaikanur village, Omalur Taluk and in Survey No. 61/1 (part) over an extent of 1 acre in Ettikuttapatti Village, Omalur Taluk, Salem District. He had also remitted the bid amount along with local cess and local cess surcharge into the State Bank of India and that the 2nd respondent/District Collector, Salem, in his proceedings Roc. No. 515 of 1989 (Mines-B) dated 22.6.1989 confirmed the lease in favour of the petitioner for both the quarries mentioned above, for a period of three years. According to the petitioner, the lease agreement was executed on 19.7.1990 and was registered as Document No. 1346 dated 26.9.1990 in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsel for the petitioner, I am not able to agree with the learned Counsel on the contentions raised. It is true that the auction was for three years from 1.7.1988 to 30.6.1991 and the petitioner was also given possession when the lease agreement was executed on 19.7.1990. But, there is a clause which was inserted in the lease deed, as extracted above, which limits the period to 30.6.1991. The petitioner with open eyes has accepted the lease deed and executed the lease deed. Having executed the lease deed, I do not think, the petitioner can turn back and say that he is entitled to have the lease for three years. Even otherwise, Condition 10 of the confirmation order says that the petitioner has to remit the security deposit before the execution of the lease deed. The petitioner has not remitted the security deposit of ₹ 2,000 till November, 1989, and it is not on the part of the respondents to delay the execution of the lease deed. Taking into consideration the delay made by the petitioner in paying the security deposit, I am not able to say that the respondents are abound by the principle of promissory estoppel. Even otherwise, with open eyes, the petitioner has entered into a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the lease agreement on 19th of July, 1990, that understanding stood superseded by the document executed between the parties wherein it was clearly stipulated that the period of lease would expire on 30th of June, 1991, unless determined earlier. The appellant executed the document and he is bound by it. The so-called earlier representation cannot be preferred to the written agreement executed between the parties. The effort of the appellant appears to be to rewrite the lease agreement and substitute Clause 4 through writ proceedings. That cannot be permitted. The writ petition was rightly dismissed by the learned single Judge and we see no reason to take a different view. The appeal fails and is dismissed. 7. The very same petitioner filed another writ petition viz., W.P. No. 9008 of 1991 on 1.7.1991 through M/s. S. Silambannan and P. Venkatachalapathi. I may state here that the writ petitioner has purposely engaged a different counsel in order to obtain an order from this Court by suppressing material facts, which I will deal with in the later part of this judgment. 8. W.P. No. 9008 of 1991 was filed for the following relief : - To issue a writ of certiomrified mandamu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ears commencing from 19.7.1990 and ending with 18.7.1993. However, taking note of the fact that the lease is normally granted for a period of three years and it would be economic and viable if the lessee is permitted to enjoy the quarry rights for a full period of three years, there will be an order in this writ petition directing the 2nd respondent to entertain an application from the petitioner for renewal of the quarry rights and pass orders thereon so as to enable the petitioner to have the privilege of quarrying at least for three full calendar years. The petitioner is enabled to submit an application for renewal on or before 30.7.1991 and on receipt of that application, orders thereon shall be passed by the 2nd respondent within three weeks from the date of receipt of such application. Till the disposal of the application for renewal, the quarry shall not be leased to any third parties. The writ petition is ordered on the above terms. No costs. 10. It is seen from the file produced before this Court by the learned Additional Government Pleader, that the order of S. Ramalingam, J., in W.P. No. 9008 of 1991 has not so far been challenged by the respondents by filing a Writ A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ease deed conditions laid down in 6(4), 6(7) and 10(5) of the lease deed. 12. The petitioner submitted his written explanation during April, 1992. The exact date is not mentioned but the same was received by the Deputy Director of Geology and Mines, Salem, on 16.4.1992. But, however, it is seen from the letter dated 30.4.1992 of Mr. P. Gunaraj, Addl. Government Pleader, High Court, Madras, addressed to the Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Madras-9, with a copy to the District Collector, Salem, that the petitioner has challenged the proceedings of the District Collector, Salem, in Roc. No. 515 of 1989/Mines-B dated 18.3.1992 by filing W.P. No. 5793 of 1992, and the same was dismissed by this Court on 23.4.1992 by J. Kanakaraj, J. The petitioner has thereafter filed the present two writ petitions W.P. Nos. 6503 and 6504 of 1992. 13. The prayer in W.P. Nos. 6503 of 1992 is as follows : - To issue a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from interfering with the quarrying operations of the petitioner in Survey Nos. 2 (part) and 61/1 (part), totally measuring an extent of 6.15 acres in Ettikuttapatti Village, Omalur Taluk, Salem District, till 18.7.1993 pursua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and that the respondents are keeping his application pending for long time since 14.2.1992. Hence, the petitioner is approaching this Court to direct the respondents to issue necessary permits to him in respect of the quarried rough stone jellies, etc., for transporting them for local sales. Thus, the petitioner has filed W.P. No. 6503 of 1992 for a mandamus forbearing the respondents from interfering with the quarrying operations by the petitioner of the subject quarry pursuant to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent/District Collector, Salem in Roc. No. 515 of 1989/Mines-B dated 12.9.1991, and to direct the respondents to issue necessary permits for the transportation of the quarried stones, etc. 16. On the very same allegations, W.P. No. 6504 of 1992 was filed by the petitioner through the very same counsel and on the very same date. In this writ petition also, the petitioner has made a reference only to W.P. No. 9008 of 1991 wherein he prayed for extension of lease, and after referring to the order of S. Ramalingam, J., the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to execute the lease deed in favour of the responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lated to deceive the Court into granting the order of rule nisi. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the present two writ petitions since the whole claim of the writ petitioner is based on the earlier order obtained by him from S. Ramalingam, J., in W.P. No. 9008 of 1991, which, as I have stated above, was obtained on suppression of material and relevant facts. Hence, on this short ground, both the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 19. It is also to be noticed that W.P. No. 9008 of 1991 was disposed of by the learned Judge at the time of admission itself by giving certain directions to consider the application for renewal. That writ petition was not even admitted, though it is seen from the order, that the name of Mr. J.R.K. Bhavanantham, Additional Government Pleader was mentioned in the order. It appears that the Additional Government Pleader, who was present in Court, was asked to take notice on behalf of the respondents. 20. As stated above, W.P. No. 1835 of 1991, W.A. No. 429 of 1991, W.P. No. 9008 of 1991, and W.P. No. 5793 of 1992 were disposed of by this Court at the admission stage itself. It is seen from the file produced by the learned Addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e hauled up for Contempt of Court. (Sd.) M.A. Sadanand, 17.8.1991, G.P. In order to avoid contempt proceedings, orders were passed by the District Collector, Salem, in Roc. No. 515 of 1991/Mines-B dated 12.9.1991 granting the lease to quarry rough stones, etc., for the period from 19.7.1990 to 18.7.1993, subject to the provisions contained in Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules,' 1959. 23. As stated above, this is a typical case of gross abuse of the process of Court. Admittedly, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 1835 of 1991 through his counsel M/s. V. Santhanam and V. Seshayyan seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash Clause 4 of the lease deed dated 19.7.1990 relating to the period of the lease executed by the petitioner in favour of the District Collector, Salem. That writ petition was dismissed in limine by my learned Brother K.S. Bakthavatsalam, J. The petitioner herein unsuccessfully challenged the said order in W.A. No. 429 of 1991, As a matter of fact, the First Bench consisting of Hon'ble Chief Justice A.S. Anand, as he then was, and D. Raju, J., while dismissing the writ appeal in limine, has held that the petitioner having signed the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .P. Nos. 6503 and 6504 of 1992. 28. I am concerned with the question whether the petitioner can claim any relief in the present two writ petitions. The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution is an extra-ordinary and discretionary remedy. This Court would be fully justified in refusing to exercise its discretion in favour of a person who has abused the process of court and suppressed material and relevant factors and obtained orders from the High Court. It is on the strength of such orders, the petitioner is now claiming relief in the present writ petitions. In my view, Court should not be a party and extend its helping hand to a person who has played a fraud on court. 29. It is also significant to notice that the writ petitioner has not chosen to mention about W.P. No. 1835 of 1991 and W.A. No. 429 of 1991 in the present two writ petitions. The petitioner has not come to court with clean hands and failed to disclose material facts. The reason for not mentioning the above facts is also obvious. If the petitioner were to disclose the earlier writ proceedings in W.P. No. 9008 of 1991, the Court would have not only declined the relief but also frowned on the petitioner. Equ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is asked to show cause as to why the said sum should not be demanded from the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that he has a subsisting lease and therefore, the show cause notice is not warranted. I do not think that this contention can be accepted at this stage because it has to be seen whether the lease deed authorises the petitioner to quarry rough stones and whether the lease deed was subsisting during the period when the illicit quarrying is said to have taken place. These are all matters which the authority has to enquire into on the basis of the explanation that the petitioner will submit, in response to the show cause notice. It is too early to come to any conclusion one way or the other. Therefore, lam not inclined to interfere at this stage. It is open to the petitioner to submit his explanation. If he is ultimately aggrieved by the order, it is open to him to challenge the same in the manner known to law. The writ petition is dismissed. 32. It is after the dismissal of the aforesaid writ petition (W.P. No. 5793 of 1992) on 23.4.1992, the petitioner has filed the two writ petitions in question on 29.4.1992. The petitioner has sworn to the affidavit on 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m, learned Additional Government Pleader, taking into consideration of the excellent work done by him in protecting the interest of the State. 35. Further, I direct the respondents to remove all the materials quarried by the petitioner, sell the same and appropriate the sale proceeds towards the amounts due to the State from the petitioner and take further action for recovery of the balance, if any. 36. Before parting with this case, I must also point out that the lawyers as officers of court, owe a duty to the court to place all matters before the court. The earlier proceedings in W.P. No. 1835 of 1991, W.A. No. 429 of 1991 and W.P. No. 5793 of 1992, and the present writ petitions have been filed by one and the same counsel. Hence, it was obligatory on the part of the lawyers to have ascertained as to how the petitioner has obtained the order in W.P. No. 9008 of 1991 inspite of the dismissal of the earlier W.P. No. 1835 of 1991 and W.A. No. 429 of 1991, and mentioned all the facts in the present writ proceedings. I am also tempted to feel that the petitioner has changed the counsel for appearing in W.P. No. 9008 of 1991 with a view to wriggle out of the legal implications fl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
