Supreme Court upholds dismissal of appeal due to delay in filing and rule repeal

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, concurring with the High Court's decision to reject the writ petition due to an unjustifiable delay in filing and the repeal of Rule 39, which invalidated the basis of the petitioner's claim for a mining lease. The Court emphasized that there is no vested right in the grant of mining leases and upheld the principle that applications must adhere to the prevailing rules at the time of consideration. The appeal was dismissed without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the writ petition.
2. Repeal of Rule 39 and its impact on the writ petitioner's application.
3. Vested rights in the grant of mining leases.

Summary:

1. Delay in Filing the Writ Petition:
The primary issue before the Court was the delay in filing the writ petition. The State Government rejected the writ petitioner's application on 8.10.1996, but the writ petitioner did not challenge this decision until 27.4.2003. The Court found the writ petition to be "hopelessly belated" and agreed with the High Court's dismissal on this ground. The Court emphasized that a person who waits for such a long time without a justifiable reason cannot be granted any benefit.

2. Repeal of Rule 39 and Its Impact:
Rule 39 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, which allowed the State Government to grant or renew quarry leases in special cases, was repealed on 27.6.1996. The writ petitioner's application was pending when Rule 39 was repealed. The Court noted that since Rule 39 was repealed within the time frame directed by the High Court, the basis for the writ petitioner's application was "totally knocked out." Consequently, the authorities could not accede to the writ petitioner's request as the rule under which the application was made no longer existed.

3. Vested Rights in the Grant of Mining Leases:
The Court reiterated that no person has a vested right to the grant or renewal of a mining lease. The application must be dealt with according to the rules in force at the time of its disposal. The Court cited previous judgments, including *State of Tamil Nadu v. Hind Stone* and *P.T.R. Exports (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India*, to support this position. The Court concluded that the writ petitioner had no vested right to have his application considered under the repealed Rule 39.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the High Court's decision on both the grounds of delay and the merits. The Court found no justification for the writ petitioner's long delay in challenging the rejection of his application and confirmed that the repeal of Rule 39 invalidated the basis for his claim. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

---