Allowed¶55

Galaxy Enterprises v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC6 Jan 2026WP/912/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Granite quarry lease renewal; Madras High Court; Galaxy Enterprises v Government of Tamil Nadu; Article 226 certiorarified mandamus; Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959 Rule 8(A) Rule 8A; Granite Conservation and Development Rules 1999; G.O.(D).No.54 dated 10.05.2023 set aside; one-time renewal entitlement; Clause 8(5) lease deed dated 17.09.1990; 200% of lease amount received; renewal applications dated 06.09.1999 and 26.11.2002; Thiruvannamalai Nachanandal Village S.F. No.46/2; direction to renew lease per lease deed and revised rules.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned G.O.(D) No.54 dated 10.05.2023 set aside; respondents directed to renew the quarrying lease in favour of the petitioner in accordance with the terms of the lease deed and the revised rules; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Galaxy Enterprises Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶55

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to a one-time renewal of the granite quarrying lease in terms of Rule 8(A) of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 and Clause 8(5) of the lease deed dated 17.09.1990, notwithstanding the amendment of Rule 8A and the coming into force of the Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999. +1 more

¶51

Court's answer

At the time the petitioner applied for renewal, the pre-amendment Rule 8(A) of the Rules, providing for a one-time renewal, was in force.

¶51

Ratio / Principle

Having received 200% of the lease amount from the petitioner towards the renewal, the respondents cannot now refuse to renew the lease.

¶51

Key takeaways

In terms of Rule 8(A) of the Rules and Clause 8(5) of the lease deed, the petitioner is entitled to a one-time renewal of the lease deed.ratio¶51
The writ petition is allowed; the impugned G.O.(D) No.54 dated 10.05.2023 passed by the 1st respondent is set aside and the respondents are directed to renew the lease in favour of the petitioner in accordance with the terms of the lease deed and the revised rules; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.ratio¶55

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.No.912 of 2024 (Madras High Court, coram Ms. Justice P.T. ASHA, decided 06.01.2026): Galaxy Enterprises' renewal application for its black granite quarrying lease over S.F. No.46/2 admeasuring 1.57.50 Hectares in Nachanandal Village, Thiruvannamalai Taluk (original lease granted by GO.Ms.No.75 dated 24.07.1990; lease deed executed 17.09.1990 for ten years expiring 16.09.2000; timely renewal application of 06.09.1999 with Rs. 4,51,500/- followed by fresh application of 26.11.2002 with Rs.1,50,000/-) was rejected by G.O.(D).No.54 dated 10.05.2023. Holding that the unamended Rule 8(A) of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 and Clause 8(5) of the lease deed conferred a one-time renewal, and that having received 200% of the lease amount the respondents could not refuse renewal, the Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the G.O. and directed the respondents to renew the lease in accordance with the terms of the lease deed and the revised rules.

¶1

W.P.No.912 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 06.01.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

¶6

W.P.No.912 of 2024 and WMP.No.940 of 2024

¶7

Galaxy Enterprises, Rep. by its Proprietor S.R. Kumar, 4B, Jeypore Terrace, 354, Avvai Shanmugam Salai, Gopalapuram, Chennai-600 086

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

l.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Secretary to Government, Industries, Investment Promotion and Commerce (MMB.2) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

¶11

The Government of Tamil Nadu,

¶12

Rep. by Additional Chief Secretary to Government (FAC), Natural Resources Department, Fort. St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶13

The Commissioner / Director of Geology and Mining, Department of Geology and Mining, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.

¶14

1/9

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.No.912 of 2024

¶17

The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvahnamalai.

¶18

...Respondents

¶19

Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, call for the records of the 1st respondent relating to G.O.(D) No.54, Industries, Investment Promotion and Commerce (MMB.2) Department, dated 10.05.2023 quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to grant renewal of lease to the petitioner for quarrying granite from the land bearing S.F. No.46/2 admeasuring 1.57.50 Hectares in Nachanandal Village, Thiruvannamalai Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District formerly Thiruvannamalai Sambuvarayar District for a period of 20 years pursuant to the renewal application of the petitioner dated 26.11.2002.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Muthukumarasamy For Respondents : Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu, AGP for R.1 to R.4.

¶21

2/9

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.No.912 of 2024

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:-

¶26

“call for the records of the 1st respondent relating to G.O.(D) No.54, Industries, Investment Promotion and Commerce (MMB.2) Department, dated 10.05.2023 quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to grant renewal of lease to the petitioner for quarrying granite from the land bearing S.F. No.46/2 admeasuring 1.57.50 Hectares in Nachanandal Village, Thiruvannamalai Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District formerly Thiruvannamalai Sambuvarayar District for a period of 20 years pursuant to the renewal application of the petitioner dated 26.11.2002”

¶27

The facts which led to the filing of the above Writ Petition have been set out herein below:-

¶28

3.The petitioner would submit that vide GO.Ms. No.608 dated 02.09.1989, the 3rd respondent District Collector had called for a tender for quarrying black granite from the poromboke land in S.No.46/2 measuring 1.57.50 hectares in Village Nachanandal Village, Thiruvannamalai Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District, formerly Thiruvannamalai Sambuvarayar

¶29

3/9

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.No.912 of 2024

¶32

District for a period of 10 years. The petitioner had participated in the tender and as the bid quoted by him was the highest he was granted lease vide GO.Ms.No.75 dated 24.07.1990. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent had executed a lease deed on 17.09.1990 in favour of the petitioner for a period of 10 years commencing from 17.09.1990 to 16.09.2000.

¶33

While granting the lease. the Rule then prevalent was Rule 8(A) of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”). As per Rule 8(A) of the Rules, the date of commencing of the lease was the date on which the lease is executed. As per Rule 8A( 11) of the Rules and clause 8(5) of the lease deed, the petitioner was entitled to a one time renewal of the lease at the end of the period of the lease for a period not exceeding the period of original lease. The condition imposed for the said renewal was that the lessee should pay 150% of the original lease amount while applying for the renewal. That apart, the renewal had to be made 12 months prior to the expiry of the original lease. As the original lease was to expire on 16.09.2000, the petitioner had made an application for renewal on 06.09.1999. The petitioner had also enclosed the demand draft for a sum of Rs. 4,51,500/- which was the necessary fees for the renewal of the lease.

¶34

4/9

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.No.912 of 2024

¶37

It is the further contention of the petitioner that based on the representation of the All India Granite Association, the Central Government had framed the Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the “New Rules”) which came into effect from 01.06.1999. As per these New Rules, Granite lease have to be granted for a minimum period of 20 years and a maximum period of 30 years and the same was renewable for a period not exceeding 20 years. The New Rules also contain a provision for the second renewal of a lease. Since the petitioner’s request for renewal of lease was not disposed of, he filed WP.No.5345/2001 seeking a Mandamus forbearing the respondents from anyway interfering with his right to continue quarrying till the disposal of his renewal application. In the said writ petition, an interim order maintaining the status quo was passed.

¶38

Meanwhile, the provisions of Rule 8A of the Rules was amended and therefore, the petitioner’s renewal application which was submitted on the request of the 3rd respondent was returned. Thereafter, the petitioner had made another application on 26.11.2002 for renewal of lease with all the necessary documents also enclosing a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- being the 50% of the lease amount.

¶39

5/9

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.No.912 of 2024

¶42

Thereafter, on 20.12.2002, WP.No.5325 of 2001 was disposed of

¶43

with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner’s renewal application within a period of 3 months. The petitioner had made another renewal application on 26.11.2002, as per the letter of the 3^rd respondent dated 12.11.2022. However, the same was not considered and the petitioner was constrained to file WP.No.2371 of 2021. This Court by order dated 04.02.2021 directed the 1^st respondent to consider and dispose of the renewal application dated 26.11.2002 within a period of 12 weeks. Pursuant to this order, the 1^st respondent had conducted an enquiry and the petitioner had also participated in the enquiry and submitted a detailed explanation. However, despite the petitioner complying with the terms of the lease, his request for renewal of lease has been turned down by the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent in GO.(D).54 dated 10.05.2023. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶44

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records.

¶45

The records would show that the petitioner was granted the lease by GO.Ms.No.75 dated 24.07.1990. Thereafter, the petitioner as set out in the lease agreement had submitted an application for renewal of lease 12 months prior to the expiry of the lease by application dated 06.09.1999 with

¶46

6/9

¶47

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

¶48

W.P.No.912 of 2024

¶49

requisite charges. However, the petitioner’s renewal application was not considered and the 3^rd respondent had directed the petitioner to re-submit his renewal application as per the amended provisions of the Rule 8A of the Rules. Accordingly, the petitioner had send another renewal application on 26.11.2002. However, the 1st respondent, without appreciating the terms of the lease deed dated 17.09.1990 entered into between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, and without considering the explanation given by the petitioner during the enquiry, had ultimately rejected the petitioner’s renewal application by the impugned GO.(D).No.54 dated 10.05.2023.

¶50

It is seen that at the time when the petitioner made an application

¶51

for renewal of the lease agreement, the old Rule 8(A) of the Rules was in force, which provides for a one-time renewal of the lease deed, and that the lease deed executed between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent contains a similar condition under Clause 8(5). Further, having received 200% of the lease amount from the petitioner for the renewal of the lease, the respondent cannot now refuse to renew the lease. Therefore, this Court is of the view that, in terms of Rule 8(A) of the Rules and Clause 8(5) of the lease deed, the petitioner is entitled to a one-time renewal of the lease deed.

¶52

7/9

¶53

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

¶54

W.P.No.912 of 2024

¶55

In view of the foregoing discussions, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned G.O.(D) No.54 dated 10.05.2023, passed by the 1st respondent, is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to renew the lease in favour of the petitioner in accordance with the terms of the lease deed and the revised rules. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶56

06.01.2026

¶57

(shr) Index : Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶58

¶59

l.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Secretary to Government, Industries, Investment Promotion and Commerce (MMB.2) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

¶60

The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Additional Chief Secretary to Government (FAC), Natural Resources Department, Fort. St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶61

The Commissioner / Director of Geology and Mining, Department of Geology and Mining, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.

¶62

The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvahnamalai.

¶63

8/9

¶64

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

W.P.No.912 of 2024

P.T. ASHA . J.,

(shr)

W.P.No.912 of 2024

¶69

06.01.2026

¶70

9/9

¶71

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

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
G.O.(D).No.54 dated 10.05.2023 issued by the 1st respondent rejecting the petitioner's application for renewal of the granite quarrying lease¶49
1st respondent - Government of Tamil Nadu, Industries, Investment Promotion and Commerce (MMB.2) Department · 10.05.2023
Prior proceeding
Tender called by the District Collector (3rd respondent) vide GO.Ms. No.608 dated 02.09.1989 for quarrying black granite from poromboke land in S.No.46/2, Nachanandal Village, for 10 years; petitioner's bid was highest¶28
Prior proceeding
Lease granted vide GO.Ms.No.75 dated 24.07.1990; lease deed executed on 17.09.1990 for 10 years commencing 17.09.1990 to expiry on 16.09.2000¶32
Prior proceeding
Renewal application made on 06.09.1999, twelve months prior to expiry, enclosing demand draft of Rs. 4,51,500/- as renewal fee¶33
Prior proceeding
Central Government framed the Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999 (effective 01.06.1999); petitioner filed WP.No.5345/2001 seeking a Mandamus not to interfere with his right to continue quarrying till disposal of renewal application¶37
Prior proceeding
In WP.No.5345/2001 an interim order maintaining status quo was passed¶37
Prior proceeding
Rule 8A of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 amended; petitioner's renewal application, submitted on the 3rd respondent's request, was returned¶38
Prior proceeding
Fresh renewal application made on 26.11.2002 with all necessary documents and a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- being 50% of the lease amount¶38
Prior proceeding
WP.No.5325 of 2001 disposed of on 20.12.2002 with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on the renewal application within three months¶42
Prior proceeding
Renewal application of 26.11.2002 not considered; petitioner constrained to file WP.No.2371 of 2021¶43
Prior proceeding
By order dated 04.02.2021 in WP.No.2371 of 2021 this Court directed the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of the renewal application dated 26.11.2002 within 12 weeks; an enquiry was thereafter conducted and the petitioner participated submitting a detailed explanation¶43

Galaxy Enterprises v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Galaxy Enterprises v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C. Kanagaraj Vs the District Collector

R.Sundari Vs The District Collector

S.Ahilan Vs Union of India

T.P.S.Construction Company Vs the Superintending Engineer (H )

M/S. K.T.V. Health Foods Pvt. Ltd., Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

P. Srinivasan Vs Tamilnadu Housing Board (Tnhb)