Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

The Government of Tamil Nadu, Vs K.Jeyakumar — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Home
Madras HC
2025
The Government of Tamil Nadu, Vs K.JeyakumarThe Government of Tamil Nadu, v. K.Jeyakumar

Dismissed¶33

The Government of Tamil Nadu, v. K.Jeyakumar

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court – W.A.(MD)No.985 of 2021 – decided 07.02.2025

Madras HC7 Feb 2025WA(MD)/985/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal W.A.(MD)No.985 of 2021, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, decided 07.02.2025 by G.R. Swaminathan and M. Jothiraman, JJ. State appeal under Clause XV of Letters Patent against common order dated 21.08.2019 in W.P.(MD)No.10644 of 2018 directing refund of the 10% lease amount remitted by quarry lease bidders, with interest, after the quarry notification was struck down. Identical appeals W.A(MD)No.1044 of 2021 (dismissed 26.04.2021) and W.A.(MD)No.225 of 2022 already rejected; present appeal dismissed on the same approach, no costs, connected C.M.P.(MD)No.4468 of 2021 closed. Keywords: quarry lease, refund, 10% lease amount, interest, notification quashed, Tamil Nadu, Geology and Mining, Tirunelveli.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellants; writ appeal dismissed with no costs and connected miscellaneous petition C.M.P.(MD)No.4468 of 2021 closed.

Why is it important?

Since identical challenges to the common order dated 21.08.2019 had already failed in W.A(MD)No.1044 of 2021 (order dated 26.04.2021) and in W.A.(MD)No.225 of 2022, this Court adopts the very same approach, dismisses the present writ appeal with no costs, and closes the connected miscellaneous petition C.M.P.(MD)No.4468 of 2021; consequently, the Single Judge's refund direction stands. ¶33

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellants; writ appeal dismissed with no costs and connected miscellaneous petition C.M.P.(MD)No.4468 of 2021 closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ appeal filed by the State authorities under Clause XV of the Letters Patent, seeking to set aside the learned Single Judge's common order dated 21.08.2019 in W.P.(MD)No.10644 of 2018 (allowing refund of the 10% lease amount with interest to quarry lease bidders after the quarry notification was struck down), should be allowed.

Court's answer

Since identical challenges to the common order dated 21.08.2019 had already failed in W.A(MD)No.1044 of 2021 (order dated 26.04.2021) and in W.A.(MD)No.225 of 2022, this Court adopts the very same approach, dismisses the present writ appeal with no costs, and closes the connected miscellaneous petition C.M.P.(MD)No.4468 of 2021; consequently, the Single Judge's refund direction stands.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court — W.A.(MD)No.985 of 2021 — decided 07.02.2025 — Coram: G.R. Swaminathan and M. Jothiraman, JJ. (Judgment by G.R. Swaminathan, J.). Quarry lease — Refund of 10% lease amount with interest — Quarry notification struck down — By common order dated 21.08.2019 in W.P.(MD)No.10644 of 2018 (one of a batch including W.P(MD) Nos. 6828, 7961, 7962, 7963, 8195, 10639-10644 of 2018), the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions of quarry lease bidders who had remitted 10% of the lease amount, granting refund with interest. The State's identical appeals had already been dismissed — W.A(MD)No.1044 of 2021 by order dated 26.04.2021 and W.A.(MD)No.225 of 2022 by a Division Bench taking the same line. Following the same approach, the Division Bench dismissed the present writ appeal (by the Government of Tamil Nadu and others) with no costs and closed the connected C.M.P.(MD)No.4468 of 2021.

A

W.A.(MD)No.985 of 2021

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 07.02.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

W.A.(MD)No.985 of 2021 and

C.M.P.(MD)No.4468 of 2021

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,

Rep. by Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Geology and Mining, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.

3.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

4.The District Forest Officer, Tirunelveli Divison, Tirunelveli – 7.

... Appellants

Vs.

K.Jeyakumar

... Respondent

1/5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.(MD)No.985 of 2021

Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to allow the writ appeal by setting aside the order dated dated 21-08-2019 made in W.P(MD).No.10644 of 2018 on the file of this Court.

For Appellants : Mr.K.Balasubramani, Spl. Government Pleader.

For Respondent : Mr.V.Sanjevi

JUDGMENT (Judgment of the court was delivered by G.R.Swaminathan, J.)

Heard both sides.

2.What is under challenge in this writ appeal is the order dated 21.08.2019 made in W.P.(MD)No.10644 of 2018. It is a common order whereby disposal was given to a number of writ petitions. The writ petitioners were bidders for quarry lease and they had remitted 10% of the lease amount. The quarry notification itself was struck down. Therefore, they wanted not only refund of the amount remitted by them but also interest. The writ petitions were allowed by the learned Single Judge by common order dated 21.08.2019. Challenging the order made in W.P.(MD)No.7961 of 2018, the Government filed W.A.(MD)No.225

of 2022. It was dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the following terms:-

2/5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.(MD)No.985 of 2021

“1.Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated 21 August 2019 recorded on group of petitions being W.P(MD) Nos. 6828, 7961, 7962, 7963, 8195, 10639, 10640, 10641, 10642, 10643 & 10644 of 2018. The present appeal arises from writ petition in W.P(MD) No.7961 of 2018. This appeal is by the respondents - State Authorities.

2.Learned Advocate for the appellants has, at the outset, fairly brought to the notice of this Court that, the very same order was the subject matter of appeal being W.A(MD)No.1044 of 2021 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 26.04.2021.

3.No different view needs to be taken. This appeal is also dismissed on the same line, with the same observations. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions would not survive.”

3.Adopting the very same approach, we dismiss the present writ appeal also. This writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

(G.R.S. J.,) & (M.J.R. J.,) 07.02.2025

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias

3/5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.(MD)No.985 of 2021

To:

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Geology and Mining, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.

3.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

4.The District Forest Officer, Tirunelveli Divison, Tirunelveli – 7.

4/5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.(MD)No.985 of 2021

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. and M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

ias

W.A.(MD)No.985 of 2021

07.02.2025

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5/5

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the writ appeal filed by the State authorities under Clause XV of the Letters Patent, seeking to set aside the learned Single Judge's common order dated 21.08.2019 in W.P.(MD)No.10644 of 2018 (allowing refund of the 10% lease amount with interest to quarry lease bidders after the quarry notification was struck down), should be allowed.medium confidence¶20
The court held
Since identical challenges to the common order dated 21.08.2019 had already failed in W.A(MD)No.1044 of 2021 (order dated 26.04.2021) and in W.A.(MD)No.225 of 2022, this Court adopts the very same approach, dismisses the present writ appeal with no costs, and closes the connected miscellaneous petition C.M.P.(MD)No.4468 of 2021; consequently, the Single Judge's refund direction stands.ratio¶33

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Letters PatentClause XV¶20

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Common order dated 21.08.2019 made by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.10644 of 2018 allowing writ petitions filed by quarry lease bidders who had remitted 10% of the lease amount after the quarry notification was struck down, directing refund of the amount remitted together with interest.¶25
Learned Single Judge, Madras High Court (on the file of this Court, Madurai Bench) · 21.08.2019
Prior proceeding
A batch of writ petitions (W.P(MD) Nos. 6828, 7961, 7962, 7963, 8195, 10639, 10640, 10641, 10642, 10643 & 10644 of 2018) was filed by bidders for quarry lease who had remitted 10% of the lease amount; the quarry notification itself was struck down and they sought refund with interest.¶25
Prior proceeding
The writ petitions were allowed by the learned Single Judge by common order dated 21.08.2019.¶25
Prior proceeding
Challenging the order made in W.P.(MD)No.7961 of 2018, the Government filed W.A.(MD)No.225 of 2022.¶25
Prior proceeding
W.A.(MD)No.225 of 2022 was dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench, which recorded that an identical appeal, W.A(MD)No.1044 of 2021, had already been dismissed by order dated 26.04.2021 and took the same line.¶26
Prior proceeding
As recorded within the quoted Division Bench order in W.A.(MD)No.225 of 2022, the very same common order was the subject matter of W.A(MD)No.1044 of 2021, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 26.04.2021.¶31

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.¶8
K.Balasubramani
appellant
The Commissioner of Geology and Mining, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.¶10
K.Balasubramani
appellant
The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.¶11
K.Balasubramani
appellant
The District Forest Officer, Tirunelveli Divison, Tirunelveli - 7.¶12
K.Balasubramani
respondent
K.Jeyakumar¶15
V.Sanjevi

Coram

AI extract

G.R.Swaminathanauthor¶23
M.Jothiramanmember¶5

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 7 Feb 2025 · February
Registered: 13 May 2021
Case no.: WA(MD)/985/2021
CNR: HCMD010252592020
Bench: G.r.swaminathan M.jothiraman
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: W.A.(MD)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from G.r.swaminathan M.jothiraman

A-3101, Madurai Milk Project Employees, Vs S.Karthkeyan
6 Feb 2025
M.Rathinavelu (Died) 1.Panchavarnam, Vs M.Murugan
6 Feb 2025
The Central Bard of Trustees through the aASSISTANT Provident Fund Commissioner, Vs the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal
6 Feb 2025
P.Jeyachandran Vs the Director of School Education Department
7 Feb 2025
Deepa Vs S. Vijayalakshmi
7 Feb 2025
R.Santhanam Vs The District Revenue Officer
7 Feb 2025

Cite this judgement

The Government of Tamil Nadu, v. K.Jeyakumar, WA(MD)/985/2021 (MAD), decided on 7 February 2025.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Letters PatentClause XV

View all statutes

Procedural history6

Common order dated 21.08.2019 made by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.10644 of 2018 allowing writ petitions filed by quarry lease bidders who had remitted 10% of the lease amount after the quarry notification was struck down, directing refund of the amount remitted together with interest.Learned Single Judge, Madras High Court (on the file of this Court, Madurai Bench) · 21.08.2019
A batch of writ petitions (W.P(MD) Nos. 6828, 7961, 7962, 7963, 8195, 10639, 10640, 10641, 10642, 10643 & 10644 of 2018) was filed by bidders for quarry lease who had remitted 10% of the lease amount; the quarry notification itself was struck down and they sought refund with interest.
The writ petitions were allowed by the learned Single Judge by common order dated 21.08.2019.

View full history

Bench / Coram

G.R.Swaminathan and M.Jothiraman

Parties & counsel