logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2025 Kar HC 1983 print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Karnataka
Case No : Writ Petition No. 36016 Of 2025 (GM-MM-S)
Judges: THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
Parties : B.M. Rajashekar Versus The State Of Karnataka, Represented By Its Chief Secretary, Bengaluru & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: B.R. Bharathgowda, Advocate. For the Respondents: K.S. Harish, Government Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 10-12-2025
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Articles 226 & 227 -

Comparative Citation:
2025 KHC 52110,
Judgment :-

(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue writ of certiorari of any appropriate order quashing the impugned order passed in Revision Petition No. 239/2007-08 dated 13.09.2024, passed by the Respondent No. 5, (produced at Annexure-C) & etc.)

Oral Order

Vibhu Bakhru, CJ.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition inter alia impugning an order dated 13.09.2024 [impugned order] passed by respondent No.5, whereby the revision petition preferred by the petitioner [being Revision Petition No.239/2007-08] is rejected. The petitioner further prays that directions be issued to respondent Nos.3 to 5 to consider the petitioner's application dated 12.12.2005.

2. The petitioner had filed an application for grant of quarrying lease for building stone on 12.12.2005 for a term of 10 years over an extent of 5.00 acres falling in Survey No.83 situated at Sugganahalli Village, Ramanagara Taluk, Ramanagara District [now identified in Bengaluru South District]. The petitioner's application was rejected by respondent No.3 in terms of an order dated 13/14.02.2007.

3. A plain reading of the said order indicates that the petitioner's application was rejected on the ground that the villagers had objected to the same. They had pointed out that if the mining is carried out in the said area, the crops standing on the neighbouring land would get damaged. Additionally there was a Government Lake and an ancient temple located in the vicinity of the land in question and the same would also suffer damages, in the event any mining activity was carried out on the subject land.

4. Aggrieved by the order rejecting the petitioner's application for mining lease, the petitioner preferred a revision petition under Rule 53(1) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 [the Rules] on 01.08.2007, that is after a delay of approximately two months. The said revision petition continued to be pending and it does not appear that the petitioner took any steps to expedite the same. The said petition came to be rejected in terms of the impugned order dated 13.09.2024.

5. A plain reading of the impugned order indicates that hearing of the revision petition was conducted on 13.09.2024 and the petitioner was duly represented. The authority found that a letter seeking no objection was sent to the Deputy Commissioner. However, the Deputy Commissioner had in his letter dated 03.06.2006, said that if mining is carried out, damage would be caused to the neighbouring land and crops. The Deputy Commissioner also pointed out that there was an ancient temple near the area and a government lake which would get damaged.

6. After considering the above, the Revisional Authority rejected the revision petition inter-alia on the ground that the same is not eligible for consideration under the Rules as amended in 2016- 2023.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner earnestly contended that the petitioner's application was pending and therefore in terms of Rule 8-A and 8-B of the Rules as amended in 2023, the pending applications are required to be considered. We find no merit in the aforesaid contention. As apparent from the facts narrated hereinabove that the petitioner's application for quarrying lease was rejected vide Order No.GABHOOE:UNIKA: KAGAGU:264/2006-07/10531-32 on 14.02.2007. Thus the petitioner's application could not be considered as pending on that date.

8. The petitioner relies on Rule 8-B of the Rules as amended with effect from 17.03.2023. In terms of sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B of the Rules, all applications seeking for grant of lease, prior to the date of commencement of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2016 would become eligible for grant of mining lease.

9. However, since the petitioner's application had already been rejected, the same could not be considered as pending on the date on which the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2016 come into force, that is, on 12.08.2016. We find no infirmity with the impugned order.

10. Petition is accordingly dismissed.
 
  CDJLawJournal