Smt N. Sobha, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents would submit that when the auction notification was initially issued on 02.04.2011, the entire grant of quarry leases was regulated by the rules as amended through G.O.Ms.No. 84 dated 10.04.2007 and there was no prescription or quantification of the mineral sand to be quarried or lifted from the quarry site. The quarry leases were granted for a period of two years. The lessee could quarry any amount of the mineral available there, subject to the usual restrictions imposed in the grant. Beyond that, there is no restriction with regard to the quantum of sand that can be lifted. Further, the second year lease amount was required to be paid enhancing it by 20% than the first year amount, 45 days prior to the expiry of the first year lease period. Therefore, all such lessees have parted with money, for the second year, much prior to the first year period itself coming to an end. By virtue of the interim order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, all sand quarrying operations have been brought to a halt with effect from 31.03.2012. Only after the Ministry of Environment and Forests granted the necessary clearance, the quarrying operations of sand has been resumed. The loss and injury sustained by the lessees on account of a change of the legal regime shall necessarily result in refund of money to the lessees. Instead of that, the State Government granted the extension of lease period by six months, as the present legal regime, in particular, Rule 9-T contemplated such extensions. Smt. N. Sobha, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents would submit that the exercise of power by the State Government is an absolutely legitimate one.
