M.Senthilkumar v. The Commissioner Of Mines And Geology
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.01.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN M.Senthilkumar ... Appellant Vs.
1.The Commissioner of Mines & Geology, Chennai.
2.The District Collector, Erode District.
3.The Deputy Director of Mines, Office of District Collector, Erode District.
4.The Assistant Director of Mines, Office of District Collector, Erode.
... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order dated 20.09.2024 passed in the Writ Petition in W.P.No.2462 of 2024.
Page No.: 1 of 5
For Appellant : Mr.S.Parthasarathy, Senior Counsel for Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar For Respondents : Mr.M.Suresh Kumar, Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.E.Vijay Anand, Additional Government Pleader ******
J U D G M E N T
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) The Writ Petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed, solely on the ground that the earlier Writ Petition filed by the appellant challenging the very same impugned order, dated 12.01.2024 was withdrawn without reserving liberty.
2. Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would seek to rely upon the observation of this Court made in daily order dated 21.06.2024, which reads as follows:- The prayer of the petitioner is for extension of lease period on the ground that there has been delay caused by the Page No.: 2 of 5
respondents during the lease period. This is denied by the respondents.
2. Moreover, there is a substantial difference in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.687 of 2024 which was withdrawn, and the present affidavit.
3. To be noted that the prayer in both the writ petitions are one and the same. Let both the parties give a timeline in order that the Court may appreciate the nature of the delay and who is responsible for the same.
4. List on 04.07.2024.
to contend that this Court had entertained the second Writ Petition despite the fact that the first Writ Petition was withdrawn.
3. From the order extracted above, the learned Senior Counsel would seek us to presume that this Court has held that withdrawal of the earlier Writ Petition will not operate as a bar for the second Writ Petition. We are unable to read the order in the manner suggested by the learned Senior Counsel.
4. Reliance is also placed on certain proceedings of the respondents, wherein extensions have been granted in similar circumstances. We feel that it is very unsafe to rely upon such proceedings, as these proceedings are always Page No.: 3 of 5
made for extraneous consideration.
5. We don't find any merit in this Writ Appeal. The Writ Appeal therefore fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. (R.S.M.,J.) (C.K.,J.) 20.01.2025 dsa Index : No Internet : Yes : No Speaking order To 1.The Commissioner of Mines & Geology, Chennai.
2.The District Collector, Erode District.
3.The Deputy Director of Mines, Office of District Collector, Erode District.
4.The Assistant Director of Mines, Office of District Collector, Erode.
Page No.: 4 of 5
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
dsa 20.01.2025 Page No.: 5 of 5