K.A. Swami, C.J.

These three writ appeals are preferred against a common order dated 14.12.1994 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.Nos.14451, 15451 and 10608 of 1993 respectively. Learned single Judge has dismissed W.P.No.10608 of 1993 whereas allowed the other two writ petitions. The directions issued by the learned single Judge are as follows:

(i) The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to issue transport permit to the petitioner to remove and transport the quarried materials pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.96, dated 21.2.1990:

(ii) The respondents 1 to 3 are directed to re-survey and demarcate the lands of the petitioner bearing S.Nos.22/7 22/8, 22/9A, 22/ 9B, 22/10 and 23/1 situated at Karaichithupudur village, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli Kattabomman District, covered by the lease deeds in question, if need be after notice to parties.

Writ Petition No.10608 of 1993 was filed by one Sri P.Kanagalingam. He has no interest either in the mining leases granted by the State Government in favour of the petitioner in the other two writ petitions (W.P.Nos.14451 and 15451 of 1993) nor does he claim any interest in the lands in respect of which the mining leases are granted. The only ground put forth by him is that the mining leases were granted without due regard to the provisions contained in the Mines and Minerals Development Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It may be pointed out that mining leases in question relate to patta lands and not the Government lands. Learned single Judge has nevertheless held that the petitioner in W.P.No.10608 of 1993 is entitled to maintain the writ petition as public interest litigation. We are of the view that the petitioner in W.P.No.10608 of 1993 is not entitled to maintain the writ petition under the garb of public interest litigation. As already pointed out the mining leases relate to private lands and not Government land. It is the matter between the grantee of the mining lease and the State Government. There is no question of any public interest as such involved in the mining lease granted to the petitioner in the other two writ petitions. The petitioner in W.P.No.10608 of 93 appears to have been set up on account of business rivalary. That a private interest cannot at all be pursued under the garb of public interest litigation by person who has not in any way concerned with the proceedings or the subject-matter of the proceeding is well settled. (See: S.P.Gupta and others v. President of India and others, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 149 at 227, K.Ramamurthy, M.P.v. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board etc., and others, 1994 Writ L.R. 268 paras 20 and 21, Civil Liberties Council represented by its Convener, R.R.Dalavai and others v. Government of Tamil Nadu and two others, (1994)2 L.W. 636 (F.B.). However, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant tried to contend that the petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition and placed reliance on the decision in M.Joseph v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 1993 Writ L.R. 604, para. 19 and Janata Dal v. H.S.Chowdhary, A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 892, paras. 87, 88 and 107. It is not possible to read those paragraphs in the aforesaid decisions in the manner contended by the learned senior counsel for the appellant and hold that it is permissible for the petitioner to seek the relief under the garb of public interest litigation. Having regard to the facts, as pointed above, no public interest is involved in the mining lease in question. Therefore, we are of the view that W.P.No.10608 of 1993 is not maintainable. Accordingly, it is liable to be dismissed.

2. Writ Petition Nos.14451 and 15451 of 1993 are filed by the grantee of the mining leases in question. In W.P.No.14451 of 1993, he has sought for issue of a direction to the Collector of Tirunelveli Kattabomman District, Tirunelveli to forbear from refusing to issue transport permit to the petitioner and transport the quarried materials to the place of his choice from the lands in question pursuant to the grant of mining lease under G.O.Ms.No.96, Industries Department, dated 22.1.1990. In W.P.No.15451 of 1993, he has sought for issue of a mandamus directing the Collector of Tirunelveli Kattabomman District. The Deputy Director of Geology and Mining, Tirunelveli and the District Surveyor Palayamkottai to re-survey and demarcate the lands of the petitioner bearing S.Nos.22/7, 8, 9A, 9B, 10 and 23/1 situate at Karaichithupudur village, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli Kattabomman District. As already pointed out, the learned single Judge has allowed both the writ petitions. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that there is a dispute pending between the parties in the District Munsif Court, Valliyur in respect of the lands which are the subject-matter of the mining leases. Therefore, the direction issued by the learned single Judge is not justified in law. It is also contended that the very identity of the lands in respect of which the leases have been granted is in dispute; that for granting a mining lease the area of the land must be definite; that the person who seeks the mining lease in respect of a patta land must be either the owner or a person authorised by him; that, as in the instant case, the very identity of the lands in question is in dispute irrespective of the mining lease granted, this Court ought not to have issued the directions of the nature as are issued by the learned single Judge.

3. On the contrary, it is the contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner that it has been found by the learned single Judge in categorical terms that there is no dispute with regard to the title of the petitioner in respect of the lands in question as such, the directions issued by the learned single Judge are valid in law. It is also further pointed out that as per Rule 33 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 once the mining lease is granted, it becomes the obligatory duty of the State Government to survey the land and demarcate the area in respect of which the mining lease is granted. Therefore, what the petitioner seeks by way of writ of mandamus is to direct the respondents to perform its statutory function as such, the direction issued by the learned single Judge in this regard does not call for interference.

4. As far as the statutory authorities are concerned, it is contended by learned Government Pleader that the lease was granted as long back as on 22.1.1990 under G.O.Ms.No.96; that at that time there was no dispute whatever between the parties; that the authority empowered to grant the leases was, therefore, justified in granting the lease: that the dispute between the parties has arisen much later to the grant of the leases and so far as the said dispute is concerned, the authorities will be bound by the decision that would be rendered by the civil court or whatever may be decided by the Government in this regard.

5. In the light of these contentions, the following point arises for consideration in W.A.Nos.31 and 32 of 1995:

Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the directions issued by the learned single Judge are justified in law

6. The State Government by G.O.Ms.No.96, dated 22.1.1990 has granted mining leases in question to the petitioner in respect of the following lands:

S.No. Survey No. Area (in acres)

1. 23/1 6.83

2. 22/7,8, 9A, 9B and 10 6.07

3. 92/3 2.80

4. 157/1 I.J.M.N.O and Q 2.96

Pursuant to the abovesaid Government Order, four leases have been granted in respect of the lands mentioned above. We may also point out here that G.O.Ms.No.96, dated 22.1.1990 and the leases granted pursuant thereto are not challenged. However, the petitioner himself has filed O.S.No.265 of 1993 in the District Munsif Court, Valliyur for a permanent injunction against eight defendants, out of them S.P.Thangaraj is one of the defendants, who has been impleaded as 4th respondent in W.P.No.14451 of 1993 and 5th respondent in W.P.No.15451 of 1993. The suit properties cover includes the lands which are subject-matter of the leases. Regarding the land bearing S.No.23, which is the subject-matter of the first lease as per G.O.Ms.No.96, dated 22.1.1990, the petitioner himself has described the said land at item No.20 in the schedule to the suit as follows:

Ayan, dry survey No.23/1 out of an extent of acre 6.83 cents l/4th of the undivided share that is acre 1.71 cents.

So far as the other two lands, viz. S.Nos.22/7 and 22/ 9B are concerned, there is another suit filed in the very same court being O.S.No.552 of 1992 by M/s.V.V.Minerals through its Partner, S.P.Thangaraj. As already pointed out, S.P.Thangaraj is one of the respondents in the two writ petitions in question. O.S.No.552 of 1992 also is for a permanent injunction and covers the lands bearing S.Nos.22/7, 22/9B and 23/1. In addition to this, there is an order of temporary injunction obtained by the plaintiff in O.S.No.552 of 1992. Though the petitioner in these two writ petitions is not a party to the suit nevertheless the fact remains that these three lands are also the subject-matter of O.S.No.552 of 1992 in respect of which M/s.V.V.Minerals is claiming possession and title. In addition to these circumstances, there is one more circumstance created by the petitioner himself by filing an application for appointment of a Commissioner to inspect the suit land and demarcate the boundaries of the suit land, including the lands in question. That application has been allowed by the District Munsif Court, Valliyur and pursuant to that Sri Sivasubramaniam, an advocate, has been appointed as Commissioner to inspect and demarcate the boundaries of the suit land with the help of the District Surveyor. Therefore, it is clear that apart from the fact that S.P.Thangaraj is disputing the possession and title of the plaintiff petitioner of the lands bearing S.Nos.22/3, 22/7 and 22/9B, the plaintiff himself has given rise to the question as to the identity of the suit properties, which include the lands in respect of which the mining lease is granted. It is under these circumstances, the respondents have refused to determine the boundaries of the lands in respect of which mining leases have been granted and also have refused to grant transport permit for transporting the quarried materials. It cannot be disputed that a mining lease must relate to a definite area. There should not be any ambiguity or doubt in respect of the area forming the subject of the mining lease. Of course, in the case of any doubt with regard to area and boundary of the land in respect of which a mining lease is granted. Rule 33 of the Mineral Concession Rules 1960 (Central Rules) specifically provides for survey of the area leased. It states that when a mining lease is granted by the State Government, arrangements shall be made by the State Government, at the expense of the lessee for the survey and demarcation of the area granted under the lease. In the normal course, there is no, difficulty whatever for issuing a direction to the authority who has granted the mining lease to survey and determine the area granted under the lease under Rule 33 of the aforesaid Rules because the authority granting the lease is bound to ensure that the area in respect of which lease is granted is available to the lessee for quarrying. But in the instant case, as we have already pointed out, there are two suits pending, being O.S.No.265 of 1992 filed by the petitioner himself and O.S.No.552 of 1992 filed by S.P.Thangaraj on behalf of M/s.V.V.Minerals. As the suit filed by the petitioner in the writ petitions involves all the lands that are the subject-matter of the leases, we have left with no option but to refuse relief to the petitioner in both the writ petitions. However, respondents 1 to 3 in their counter-affidavit have stated that in respect of the lands which are not covered by the suit filed by M/s.V.V.Minerals represented by S.P.Thangaraj, they have no objection for demarcating the boundaries and permitting quarrying operation. In the light of the stand taken by respondents 1 to 3, the direction issued by the learned single Judge insofar as the leases relating to lands bearing S.Nos.22/8, 22/ 9A and 22/10 has to be maintained. The point raised for determination is answered accordingly.

7. For reasons stated above, W.A.No.30 of 1995 is dismissed. Writ Appeal Nos.31 and 32 of 1995 are allowed in part. The order under appeal is modified insofar as it relates to the lands bearing S.Nos.2371, 22/7 and 22/9B, In all other respects, the order of the learned single Judge is not disturbed.

8. As both the suits (O.S.Nos.265 and 552 of 1992) are pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Valliyur, the lands which are the subject-matter of the suit O.S.No.265 of 1992 are also the subject matter of O.S.No.552 of 1992 and further the mining lease obtained by the petitioner in W.P.Nos.14451 and 15451 of 1993 is likely to expire by July, 1995", the District Munsif, Valliyur is directed to club both the suits and decide them on or before the end of April, 1995. No costs.

9. In view of the disposal of the writ appeals, no orders are necessary in the C.M.Ps. and accordingly, C.M.P.Nos.715 to 718 of 1995 are dismissed.