IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUjudgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/...EXTRACT ORDINARY BUILDING STONE IN GOVT. LAND BEARING SY.NO.96 OF BETTAHALLI VILLAGE,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR

WRIT PETITION NOs. 10601/2019 C/W 54573/2018, 5048/2019, 5046/2019, 5047/2019,

35452/2018, 2058/2019, 54223/2018, 40711/2018, 5539/2019, 15503/2019, 16563/2019, 16565/2019, 22899/2019, 22900/2019, 22901/2019, 56322/2018,

1222/2019, 1228/2019, 4377/2019, 57812/2018, 5522/2019, 11817/2019, 16431/2019, 2452/2019,

35450/2018, 35451/2018, 49973/2018, 52910/2018, 53505/2018 & 11155-57/2019, 107/2019, 674/2019, 1154-

1155/2019,1187/2019, 2076/2019, 2193/2019 & 5383/2019, 2194/2019, 2373/2019, 2854/2019, 2987/2019, 2988/2019, 2989/2019, 2990/2019, 2992/2019, 3477/2019, 3478/2019, 3479/2019, 3495/2019, 4145/2019, 4459/2019, 4600/2019, 5815/2019, 5816/2019, 6422/2019, 7810/2019, 8141/2019,

8263/2019, 8264/2019, 10445/2019, 10602/2019, 10608/2019, 10631/2019, 10632/2019, 10633/2019, 10670/2019, 11158/2019, 11160/2019, 11452/2019, 11453/2019, 11454/2019, 11455/2019, 12249/2019, 12678/2019, 14091/2019, 14093/2019, 14402/2019, 14403/2019, 14404/2019, 15541/2019, 15906/2019, 16430/2019, 16432/2019, 19358/2019, 20091/2019,

20093-20094/2019, 22366/2019, 22369/2019, 22370/2019, 22385/2019, 22891/2019, 23107/2019,

23108/2019, 2991/2019, 20689/2019 and 38427/2018(GM-MM-S)

2

IN WP NO. 10601 OF 2019

BETWEEN : K. THIRUMALESH S/O LATE KENCHAIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO.29, KRISHNAPURA VILLAGE, SOMPURA HOBLI, DABAS PET POST NELAMANGALA TALUKA -562 111 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

... PETITIONER (BY SRI R.G. KOLLE, ADV.,) AND : 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA

REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU BENGALURU-560 001

2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVT., DEPT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU BENGALURU-560 001

3. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001

4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (MINES) & COMPETENT AUTHORITY DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY RAMNAGAR-562 159

5. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS OFFICE OF THE DCF, RAMNAGAR DISTRICT RAMNAGAR-562 159

6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT TASK FORCE (MINES)

3

COMMITTEE, RAMNAGAR DISTRICT RAMNAGAR-562 159

... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V.G. BHANUPRAKASH, AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO

DIRECT THE R-4 DEPUTY DIRECTOR & COMPETENT

AUTHORITY, TO GRANT & EXECUTE A QUARRY LEASE TO

EXTRACT ORDINARY BUILDING STONE IN GOVT. LAND

BEARING SY.NO.96 OF BETTAHALLI VILLAGE, MAGADI

TALUKA, RAMNAGAR DISTRICT, OVER AN AREA OF 04.36

ACRES, PURSUANT TO A QUARRY LEASE APPLICATION

DATED 06.07.2016 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B, BY

QUASHING OR SETTING ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED

BY R-4 DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DATED 18.01.2017 PRODUCED AT

ANNEXURE-A & ETC.

IN WP NO.54573/2018

BETWEEN : SRI H VIJAYA BHASKAR REDDY S/O LATE S HANUMANTH REDDY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 21ST WARD, ANNAPURNA NILAYA J.F.ROAD, HOSAPETE-583201

... PETITIONER (BY SRI M. KESHAVA REDDY, ADV.,) AND : 1. THE GOVT. OF KARNATAKA

REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPT. OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001

2. THE DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY GOVT.OF KARNATAKA KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560001

4

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY HOSAPETE-583201

4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BALLARI DISTRICT BALLARI-583101

5. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS BALLARI SUB-DIVISION BALLARI-583101

... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)

THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO HOLD

THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER SEEKING

QUARRY LEASE VIDE ANNEXURE-A DTD:14.6.2012 IS SAVED

UNDER THE AMENDED RULE 8-B OF THE RULES AND HAS TO

BE PROCESSED UNDER THE UN-AMENDED PROVISIONS OF

THE RULES WHICH EXISTED BEFORE COMING INTO FORCE

OF THE KARNATAKA MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION

[AMENDMENT] RULES, 2016 & ETC.

IN WP NO. 5048/2019

BETWEEN : SMT. K. RATNA W/O K. KOTRESH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 21ST WARD PUJARI LANE, MAIN BAZAR HOSAPETE - 583201


REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPT. OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560001

5

2. THE DIRECTOR OF MINES & GEOLOGY

GOVT. OF KARNATAKA KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560001

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF MINES &GEOLOGY HOSAPETE - 583201

4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BALLARI DISTRICT BALLARI - 583101

5. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS BALLARI SUB DIVISION BALLARI - 583101 ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)

THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO HOLD


QUARRY LEASE VIDE ANNEXURE-A DATED 14.03.2012 IS

SAVED UNDER THE AMENDED RULE 8-B OF THE RULES AND

HAS TO BE PROCESSED UNDER THE UN-AMENDED

PROVISIONS OF THE RULES WHICH EXISTED BEFORE

COMING INTO FORCE OF THE KARNATAKA MINOR MINERAL

CONCESSION (AMENDMENT) RULES, 2016 & ETC.

IN WP NO. 5046 OF 2019

BETWEEN : SRI N.T. RAMA REDDY S/O LATE N.T. HANUMANA GOUDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 22ND WARD MAHALAKSHMI NILAYA J.P. NAGAR HOSAPETE-583201

... PETITIONER (BY SRI M. KESHAVA REDDY, ADV.,)

6

AND : 1. THE GOVT. OF KARNATAKA

REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETAWRY DEPT. OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001

2. THE DIRECTOR OFMINES & GEOLOGY GOVT. OF KARNATAKA KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560001

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTROR OF MINES & GEOLOGY HOSAPETE-583201


5. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS BALLARI SUB-DIVISION BALLARI-583101



AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO HOLD


QUARRY LEASE VIDE ANNEXURE-A IS SAVED UNDER THE

AMENDED RULE 8-B OF THE RULES AND HAS TO BE

PROCESSED UNDER THE UN-AMENDED PROVISIONS OF THE

RULES WHICH EXISTED BEFORE COMING INTO FORCE OF

THE KARNATAKA MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION

(AMENDMENT) RULES, 2016 & ETC.

IN WP NO. 5047 OF 2019

BETWEEN : SMT. S.T. ASHA W/O S.H. VIJAYA BHASKAR REDDY

7

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 21ST WARD ANNAPURNA NILAYA J.F ROAD, HOSAPETE-583201


REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETAWRY DEPT. OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001

2. THE DIRECTOR OF MINES & GEOLOGY GOVT. OF KARNATAKA KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560001

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTROR OF MINES & GEOLOGY HOSAPETE-583201


5. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS BALLARI SUB-DIVISION BALLARI 583101



AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO HOLD


QUARRY LEASE VIDE ANNEXURE-A IS SAVED UNDER THE

AMENDED RULE 8-B OF THE RULES AND HAS TO BE

PROCESSED UNDER HE UN-AMENDED PROVISIONS OF THE

RULES WHICH EXISTED BEFORE COMING INTO FORCE OF

THE KARNATAKA MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION

[AMENDMENT] RULES, 2016 & ETC.

8

IN WP NO. 35452 OF 2018

BETWEEN : M/S SRI RANGA GRANITES REPRESENTED BY IT’S MANAGING PARTNER SRI K.M. CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS NO.594, C/O VELU NAYAKAR 9TH CROSS, TRIVENI ROAD DIWANARA PALYA BANGALORE-560022

... PETITIONER (BY SRI K.M. CHANDRASHEKAR, PARTY-IN-PERSON) AND : 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIATE VIAKSA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001

2. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTEMNT OF MINES & GEOLOGY NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTEMNT OF MINES & GEOLOGY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 13TH FLOOR, V.V. TOWERS DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001




QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 02.12.2016 ON ISSUED BY

THE R-3 FOUND AT ANNEXURE-E TO THE W.P. AND ETC.

9

IN WP NO. 2058 OF 2019

BETWEEN : SRI N. SUHAS S/O LATE T.K. NAGARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT CHALMESH NILAYA B.L. GOWDA LAYOUT, 3RD CROSS, 1ST MAIN ROAD, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 501

... PETITIONER (BY SRI GANAPATHY BHAT VAJRALLI, ADV.,) AND : 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA DR B.R. AMBEDKAR VIDHI BENGALURU-560 001

2. THE SECRETARY COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE(MINES) VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001

3. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001

4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY CHITRADURGA -577 501




QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 22.11.2016

ISSUED BY THE R-4 AS PER ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.

10

IN WP NO. 54223 OF 2018

BETWEEN : SRI. M. SURESH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS S/O LATE MURTHI NAIDU HOSAMANE, NMC CIRCLE BHADRAVATHI - 577 301 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT

... PETITIONER (BY SRI PRAKASH B.S., ADV.,) AND : 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT (MSME & MINES) VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001

2. THE DIRECTOR/ COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVANA, R.C.ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001

3. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY CHIKKAMAGALUR - 577 101




QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 18/24.11.2017 ISSUED BY

THE SR. GEOLOGIST / MEMBER SECRETARY, DISTRICT TASK

FORCE COMMITTEE, CHICKAMAGALUR DISTRICT, DECLARING

AS INELIGIBLE THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER

SEEKING GRANT OF QUARRYING LEASE FOR QUARRYING

BUILDING STONE OVER AN EXTENT OF 2.00 ACRES IN SY.NO.

26 OF H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE, THARIKERE TALUK,

CHICKAMAGALUR DISTRICT. ORIGINAL ENDORSEMENT

DATED 18/24-11-2017 ISSUED BY THE SR. GEOLOGIST/

11

MEMBER SECRETARY, DISTRICT TASK FORCE COMMITTEE,

CHICKAMAGALUR HAS BEEN PRODUCED AT ANNEX-A & ETC.

IN WP NO. 40711 OF 2018

BETWEEN : POORNIMA H.T. W/O SHASHIKUMAR T.N. AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS TIRUGANAHALLI GRAMA HUNNEKERE HOBLI NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA-571432

... PETITIONER (BY SRI JAYANTH V., ADV.,) AND : 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA

REP BY ITS SECRETARY COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT (MSME AND MINES) VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001.

2. DIRECTOR/COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN, RC ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

3. SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY OFFICE OF THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST NO.MIG 73, KUVEMPUNAGAR, HASSAN-573 201




QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 26.12.2016 ISSUED BY R-3

(i.e. ANNEXURE A) AS BEING VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 AND

19(1)(g) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA & ETC.

12

IN WP NO. 5539 OF 2019

BETWEEN : RAVI H.T. AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O LATE THOPIAH VIVEKANANDA LAYOUT 3RD BLOCK, MARKET ROAD KUSHALNAGAR SOMARPETE - 571234 MADIKERI

... PETITIONER (BY SRI JAYANTH V, ADV.,) AND : 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT (MSME AND MINES) VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560001

2. DIRECTOR / COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN R.C. ROAD BANGALORE - 560001

3. SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY OFFICE OF THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST NO 4, GAGANACHUMBI JODI ROAD KUVEMPUNAGARA MYSORE - 570023




QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 19 SEPTEMBER 2016

ISSUED BY R-3 (i.e., ANNEXURE-A) AS BEING VIOLATIVE OF

ARTICLE 14 AND 19 (1) (g) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA &

ETC.

13

IN WP NO. 15503 OF 2019

BETWEEN : JAYALAKSHMI W/O MANJU AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS SUBASHNAGAR, T.B.LAYOUT NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA-571 432


REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT (MSME AND MINES) VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001

2. DIRECTOR/COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN RC ROAD BANGALORE-560 001

3. SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY OFFICE OF THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST VIDYANAGAR 1ST CROSS MANDYA-571 401




QUASH THE ENDORESEMENT DATED 9 JUNE 2017 ISSUED BY

R-3 (i.e., ANNEXURE-A) AS BEING VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14

AND 19(1)(g) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA & ETC.

14

IN WP NO. 16563 OF 2019

BETWEEN : K. HEMALATHA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, W/O Y B BASAVARAJU YELECHAKANAHALLI KOTHATHI HOBLI, K.R. PETE MANDYA-571402


REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT (MSME AND MINES) VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001

2. DIRECTOR / COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN R C ROAD BANGALORE-560001

3. SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY OFFICE OF THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST VIDYANAGAR 1ST CROSS MANDYA-571401

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI V.G. BHANUPRAKASH, AGA)


AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 3 JULY 2017 ISSUED BY R-3 (i.e., ANNEXURE-A AS BEING VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 AND 19(1)(g) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA & ETC.

15

IN WP NO. 16565 OF 2019

BETWEEN : ASHOKGOWDA PATEL AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS W/O PATEL BOREGOWDA #428, YELCHANAHALLI KOTHATHI HOBLI, K.R. PETE MANDYA-571402



2. DIRECTOR / COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN R.C. ROAD BANGALORE-560001

3. SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY OFFICE OF THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST VIDYANAGAR 1ST CROSS MANDYA-571401




QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 15 NOVEMBER 2017

(ALSO STATED AS 21 NOVEMBER 2017) ISSUED BY R-3 (i.e.,

ANNEXURE-A) AS BEING VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 AND

19(1)(g) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA & ETC.

16

IN WP NO. 22899 OF 2019

BETWEEN : VAJRAKUMAR K.G. AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O GOVINDEGOWDA D. KODIHALLI GRAMA GUNDENAHALLI POST NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA-571432.


REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT (MSME AND MINES) VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001.

2. DIRECTOR/COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN, R.C. ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.

3. SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY OFFICE OF THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST VIDYANAGAR 1ST CROSS, MANDYA-571401.




QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD:9.6.2017 ISSUED BY R-3 (i.e.

ANNEXURE-A) AS BEING VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 AND 19 (1)

(g) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA & ETC.

17

IN WP NO. 22900 OF 2019

BETWEEN : UMA E., AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS W/O RAMALINGEGOWDA GANGASAMUDRA GRAMA BANKAPUR ANCHE NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA-571432.



2. DIRECTOR/COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN, R.C. ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.





QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD:25.7.2017 ISSUED BY

R-3 [i.e., ANNEXURE-A] AS BEING VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14

AND 19[1] [g] OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA & ETC.

18

IN WP NO. 22901 OF 2019

BETWEEN : NK STONE CRUSHER NO.164 GANGASAMUDRA-BANKAPURA NAGAMANGALA MANDYA-571432 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRETOR E.UMA.



2. DIRECTOR/COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN R.C. ROAD BANGALORE-560001.





QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 25 JULY 2017 ISSUED BY

THE R-3 (i.e., ANNX-A) AS BEING VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14

AND 19(1)(g) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA & ETC.

19

IN WP NO. 56322 OF 2018

BETWEEN : SRI NAGESH C H S/O LATE HUCHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/A NO.1369/1, P W D COLONY R C ROAD HASSAN-573201

... PETITIONER (BY SRI NAVEEN CHANDRA N., ADV.,) AND : 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA

REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU BENGALURU-560001

2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU BENGALURU-560001

3. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN BENGALURU-560001

4. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY & CHAIRMAN RULE 11 COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED UNDER KMMC RULES, 1994 VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001

5. THE CHAIRMAN & DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT TASK FORCE (MINES) COMMITTEE RAMANAGRAM TALUK AND DISTRICT-562159


20



QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 21.10.2017

ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT DIRECTOR AT ANNEXURE-B IN

RESPECT OF QUARRY LEASE APPLICATION DATED 19.09.2014

SEEKING TO GRANT/EXECUTE A QUARRY LEASE TO

EXTRACT MULTI COLOUR GRANITE IN GOVT. REVENUE LAND

BEARING SY.NO. 41 OF DOLLENAHALLI VILLAGE, MAGADI

TALUK, RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT, OVER AN AREA OF 9-39

ACRES & ETC.

IN WP NO. 1222 OF 2019

BETWEEN : SRI M N ANIL KUMAR S/O LATE NARAYANAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT DODDAMARALAVADI VILLAGE MARALAVADI HOBLI KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT-562121



2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVT DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU BENGALURU-560 001

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY PANCHAYATH BHAVAN, 1ST FLOOR RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562159

21

4. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY & CHAIRMAN RULE 11 COMMITTEE, CONSTITUTED UNDER KMMC RULES, 1994, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001

5. THE CHAIRMAN & DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT TASK FORCE (MINES) COMMITTEE, RAMANAGARAM TALUK AND DISTRICT-562159





ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT DIRECTOR AT ANNEXURE-B IN

RESPECT OF QUARRY LEASE APPLICATION DATED 16.02.2015


EXTRACT BUILDING STONE IN GOVT. REVENUE LAND

BEARING SY.NO. 61 OF AJJEGOWSDANAVALASE VILLAGE,

KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT, OVER AN

ACRE OF 7-00 ACRES & ETC.

IN WP NO. 1228 OF 2019

BETWEEN : SRI JITHESH T S S/O SHASHIDHAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.44, S.L.N. EDEN GARDEN GUDDE HOSUR SUSHALANAGAR COORG DIST-571234



22

2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVT.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU BENGALURU-560 001

3. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN BENGALURU-560 001

4. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY & CHAIRMAN RULE 11 COMMITTEE, CONSTITUTED UNDER KMMC RULES 1994, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001

5. THE CHAIRMAN & DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT TASK FORCE (MINES) COMMITTEE, RAMANAGARAM TALUK AND DISTRICT-562159




QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT DTD:21.10.2017

ISSUED BY R-3 DIRECTOR AT ANNEXURE-B IN RESPECT OF

QUARRY LEASE APPLICATION DTD:19.9.2014 SEEKING TO

GRANT/EXECUTE A QUARRY LEASE TO EXTRACT

ORNAMENTAL STONE IN GOVT.REVENUE LAND BEARING SY

NO.41 OF DOLLENAHALLI VILLAGE, MAGADI TALUK

RAMANAGARA DISTRICT OVER AN AREA OF 9-39 ACRES &

ETC.

IN WP NO. 4377 OF 2019

BETWEEN : SRI K.N. MANJUNATH S/O R. NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT KOIRA VILLAGE AND POST

23

KUNDANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 164


REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU BENGALURU-560001

2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU BENGALURU-560 001

3. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN

BENGALURU-560001 4. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY & CHAIRMAN

RULE 11 COMMITTEE, CONSTITUTED UNDER KMMC RULES 1994, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001

5. THE CHAIRMAN & DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT TASK FORCE (MINES) COMMITTEE CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK & DISTRICT-562101




DIRECT TO QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT

DTD:22.7.2017 ISSUED BY R-3 DIRECTOR AT ANNEXURE-B IN

RESPECT OF QUARRY LEASE APPLICATION DTD:11.11.2011


EXTRACT ORNAMENTAL STONE IN GOVT. REVENUE LAND

BEARING SY NO.17 OF GYARDALAHALLI VILLAGE, GUDIBANDE

24

TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT, OVER AN AREA OF 4-00

ACRES & ETC.

IN WP NO. 57812 OF 2018

BETWEEN : M/S. S.N.S. ENTERPRISES A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS PATNER KATHYAYINI C., W/O SHASHIBHUSHAN AGE 31 YEARS NO.6, SRI MAUTHI COMPLEX, B.H. ROAD, NEAR TALUK OFFICE, NELAMANGALA, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123.

... PETITIONER (BY SRI K. DHIRAJ KUMAR, ADV.,) AND : 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT (MSME & MINES) VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001.

2. DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001.

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY PANCHYAT BHAVAN 1ST FLOOR RAMANAGAR - 562 127.




25

QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 18.01.2017

ISSUED BY THE R-3, REJECTING APPLICATION NO.71/2014

FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR GRANT OF QUARRY LEASE

OVER AN EXTENT OF 24 ACRES 34 GUNTAS IN SY.NO.45,

TAGGIKUPPE VILLAGE, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGAR

DISTRICT, HOLDING THAT THE SAME HAVING BECOME

INELIGIBLE, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F AND

CONSEQUENTIALLY & ETC.

IN WP NO. 5522 OF 2019

BETWEEN : SRI. B. C. NARAYANAPPA S/O. LATE CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.48 BANDEBOMMASANDRA DODDAGUBBI POST BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE-560 077

... PETITIONER (BY SRI T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADV.,) AND : 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001

2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPT. OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001

3. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION CHIKKABALLAPURA-560 101

4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT

26

PATRENAHALLI CHIKKABALLAPURA-562 101

5. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001

6. DISTRICT TASK FORCE (MINES) COMMITTEE HEADED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AS ITS CHAIRMAN O/O THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPURA CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 101

7. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPT. MINES AND GEOLOGY ROOM NO. SA-10, 2ND FLOOR DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE PATRENAHALLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 101




DIRECTION TO QUASHING OF THE ENDORSEMENT DATED

21.06.2017 ONE PASSED BY THE R-7 WHICH IS FOUND AT

ANNEXURE-"C" TO THE W.P. & ETC. IN WP NO. 11817 OF 2019

BETWEEN : SRI SURAJ S. NAIK S/O SHIVA MURTHY NAIK AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/O NO.43, 9TH CROSS ’A’ SECTOR, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN BANGALORE-560064

... PETITIONER (BY SRI SATHISH M. DODDAMANI, ADV.,)

27

AND : 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE, VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

2. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BANALORE-560001

3. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY CHITHRADURGA DISTRICT CHITHRADURGA-577 501




QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.10.2017 PASSED BY

THE R-2 VIDE ANENXURE-C AND ETC.

IN WP NO. 16431 OF 2019

BETWEEN : RAVINDRA REDDY N S/O NARAYANAREDDY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS NO.193, PALLAKAMMANAGARA CHIKKAJALA POST BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT 562157

... PETITIONER (BY SRI RAVINDRA V. REDDY, ADV.,) AND : 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA

RERPESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT

28

(MSME AND MINES) VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001.

2. DIRECTOR /COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KANIJA BHAVAN R.C. ROAD BANGALORE-560001

3. SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY OFFICE OF THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST ROOM NO.S.A-10, 2ND FLOOR JILLADALITHA BHAVANA CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI V.G. BHANUPRAKASH, AGA)



QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 22.07.2017 ISSUED BY

THE R-3 (i.e., ANNEXURE-C) AS BEING VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE

14 AND 19(1)(g) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA & ETC. IN WP NO. 2452 OF 2019

BETWEEN : NITHUL.J. SHAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS S/O JAYANTHILAL SHAH, NO.1081, 3RD FLOOR, 18TH ‘A’ MAIN 5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560010

... PETITIONER (BY SMT. CHANDINI S., ADV.,) AND : 1. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST

DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY D.C.OFFICE COMPLEX CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101

29

2. THE TASK FORCE DEPARTMENT

HEADED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER D.C.OFFICE COMPLEX CHIKKABALLAPURA

TALUK AND DISTRICT-562101 3. THE TAHASILDAR

CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101

4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101

5. THE SECRETARY (MINES & MSME) COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001

6. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN NO.49, RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560001

7. THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001




DIRECT THE R-1 TO PLACE THE APPLICATION OF THE

PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE NOTE OF DEEMED NOCs

BEFORE THE R-2 FOR GRANT OF QUARRYING LEASE & ETC.

IN WP NO. 35450 OF 2018

BETWEEN : M/S SRI RANGA GRANITES REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER

30

SRI K.M. CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS NO.594, C/O VELU NAYAKAR 9TH CROSS, TRIVENI ROAD DIWANARA PALYA, BANGALORE-560022


COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIATE VIAKSA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001

2. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560001

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 13TH FLOOR, V.V. TOWER DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001


THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD:02.12.2016 ONE ISSUED BY THE R-3 FOUND AT ANNEXURE-E TO THE W.P. AND ETC. IN WP NO. 35451 OF 2018

BETWEEN : M/S SRI RANGA GRANITES REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI K.M. CHANDRASHEKAR

31

AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS NO.594, C/O VELU NAYAKAR 9TH CROSS, TRIVENI ROAD DIWANARA PALYA, BANGALORE-560022


COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIATE VIAKSA SOUDHA, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001

2. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560001

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 13TH FLOOR, V.V. TOWER DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001




QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 02.12.2016 ONE ISSUED

BY THE R-3 FOUND AT ANNEXURE-E TO THE W.P. & ETC. IN WP NO. 49973 OF 2018

BETWEEN : SRI NAGARAJ S/O SRI GANESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT SONAPANAHALLI VILLAGE

32

JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK PIN-562 157

... PETITIONER (BY SRI T.M. CHOWDAREDDY, ADV.,) AND : 1. THE SECRETARY

DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001

2. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001

3. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPURA -562 105

4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT CHIKKABALAPURA-562105

5. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT CHIKKABALLAPURA-562105

6. THE DISTRICT TASK FORCE (MINES COMMITTEE) OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT CHIKKABALAPURA -562 105




33

DIRECT THE R-6 TO COMMUNICATE TO THE R-3 TO

FORTHWITH GRANT IN CONDITIONAL QUARRY LEASE TO

EXTRACT BUILDING STONE MATERIALS IN GOVERNMENT

LAND BEARING SY.NO. 11 MEASURING 2 ACRE IN

JONALAKUNTE VILLAGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUKA AND

DISTRICT FOR A PERIOD OF 5 YEARS AND THEREBY

QUASHING OR SET A SIDING THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY

R-3 VIDE ANNEX-A. IN WP NO. 52910 OF 2018

BETWEEN : SRI S.R. SURYA PRAKASH S/O S.K. RAMAKRISHNA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDING AT KANNIKA PARAMESHWARI ROAD PAVAGADA TOWN AND TALUK TUMAKURU DISRICT-561202

... PETITIONER (BY SRI JAYASIMHA K.P., ADV.,) AND : 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001

2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VIKASASOUDHA BENGALURU-560001

3. THE DIRECTOR AND COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJABHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001

4. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY AND CHAIRMAN RULES 11 COMMITTEE, CONSTITUTED UNDER KMMC RULES-1994 VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001

34

5. THE CHAIRMAN AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

DISTRICT TASK FORCE (MINES) COMMITTEE TUMAKURU DISTRICT TUMAKURU-571202.



AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO


ISSUED R-3 DIRECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY

PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A, IN RESPECT OF QUARRY LEASE

APPLICATION DATED 25.11.2014 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B,


EXTRACT ORNAMENTAL STONE IN GOVT. LAND BEARING

SY.NO.67, SITUATED AGRAHARA VILLAGE, PURAVARA HOBLI,

MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, OVER AN AREA OF

5.00 ACRES & ETC. IN WP NO. 53505 OF 2018 & WP NOS. 11155-157/2019

BETWEEN : 1. H.S. KRISHNE GOWDA

S/O SIDDE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, HAVALLI VILLAGE, ALDURU POST CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK & DISTRICT PIN-577 111

2. G.H. HALAPPA S/O G.M. HUCHE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, VIDYA NAGAR, HESGAL ROAD MOODIGERE ROAD, MODDIGERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT

3. G.B. PAVAN S/O BASAVARAJAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, NEELAMBIKA ROAD, 6TH CROSS BI-PASS ROAD,

35

KALYAN NAGAR 2ND MAIN CHIKKAMGALURU-577 101

4. R B VIJAYAKUMAR S/O B P RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, SRI CHANDRAMMA NILAYA KURUVANGI ROAD, JYOTHI NAGARA POST CHIKKAMAGALURU -577 102

... PETITIONERS (BY SRI VISHNU HEGDE, ADV.,) AND : 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001

2. THE PRINCIPLE SECRETARY COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (MINES) VIKASA SOUDHA

BENGALURU-560 001 3. THE DIRECTOR

DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001

4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY CHIKKAMAGALURU -577101

5. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST CHIKKAMAGALURU DIVISION CHIKKAMAGALURU

6. SENIOR GEOLOGIST (MINES DEPARTMENT) CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101

36

7. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKKAMAGALURU SUB-DIVISION CHIKKAMAGALURU


THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES

226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 22.10.2016, PASSED

BY THE R-6 PERTAINING TO THE GRANT OF LICENCE TO THE

1ST PETITIONER VIDE ANNX-A, ORDER DTD 22.10.2016,

PASSED BY THE R-6 PERTAINING TO THE GRANT OF LICENCE

TO THE 2ND PETITIONER VIDE ANNX-B, ORDER DTD

26.10.2016, PASSED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT PERTAINING

TO THE GRANT OF LICENCE TO THE 3RD PETITIONER VIDE

ANNX-C, ORDER DTD 26.10.2016, PASSED BY THE R-6

PERTAINING TO THE GRANT OF LICENCE TO THE 4TH

PETITIONER VIDE ANNX-D, AND ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS

BY DIRECTING THE R-6 TO EXECUTE THE LEASE DEED IN

FAVOUR OF THE RESPECTIVE PETITIONERS FOR THEIR

RESPECTIVE LANDS AS SHOWN IN THEIR APPLICATIONS &

ETC.

IN WP NO. 107 OF 2019

BETWEEN : SRI P. MANJAPPA SON OF P. SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT UCHHANGIDURGA VILLAGE UCHHANGIDURGA POST HARAPANAHALLI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 005


REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

37

COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT (MSME & MINES) VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001

2. THE DIRECTOR/COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVANA, R.C. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001

3. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY NO.1948/1 VIDYANAGAR DAVANAGERE-577 005





THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST, DAVANAGERE, AND THE

ENDORSEMENT DATED 16.11.2016 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR

GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY,

DAVANGERE, REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE

PETITIONER FOR GRANT OF QUARRY LEASE FOR

QUARRYING BUILDING STONE OVER AN EXTENT OF 1.00

ACRE IN SY.NO.1/C OF UCHHANGIDURGA VILLAGE,

HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. THE

ENDORSEMENT DATED 17.09.2018 AND THE ENDORSEMENT

DATED 16.11.2016 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST HAS

BEEN PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-‘A’ AND ‘B’ RESPECTIVELY &

ETC.

IN WP NO. 674 OF 2019

BETWEEN : HANUMANTHAPPA S/O BAUIRAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS CHANNAIAHNA HATTI HIREGUNTANUR HOBLI CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577501

... PETITIONER (BY SRI K.V. SATEESH CHANDRA, ADV.,)

38

AND : 1. GOVT. OF KARNATAKA

REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560001

2. THE SECRETARY COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560001

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF MINES & GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY CHITRADURGA - 577501

4. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN BANGALORE - 560001





DATED 22.11.2016, ISSUED BY R-3 AS PER ANNEXURE-B AND

ETC.

IN WP NOS. 1154-1155 OF 2019

BETWEEN : SRI PUTTASWAMY M S/O MARAVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT BYADAHALLI VILLAGE THAILUR POST, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571438

... PETITIONER (BY SRI ANANDA K, ADV.,)

39


REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT (MSME AND MINES) VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001

2. THE DIRECTOR/COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

3. SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, OFFICE OF THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST, VIDYANAGAR 1ST CROSS, MANDYA-571401




QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING DTD. 12.07.2017

ISSUED BY R-3 AT ANNX-C AND ENDORSEMENT BEARING

DTD. 12.07.2017 ISSUED BY R-3 AT ANNX-D AS BEING

VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14 & 19(1)(g) OF CONSTITUTION OF

INDIA & ETC. IN WP NO. 1187 OF 2019

BETWEEN : M/S ANJANEYA BUILDING MATERIALS A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SY.NO.14, HANAGAVADI VILLAGE, HARIHAR-577601 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS PARTNER SRI B.M. VIJAYA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O SRI B MALLESHAPPA.

... PETITIONER (BY SRI KASHYAP N. NAIK, ADV.,)

40

AND : 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT (MSME AND MINES) VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.

2. DIRECTOR/ COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

3. OFFICE OF SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY DAVANAGERE NO.1948/1, IN FRONT OF ANJANEYA TEMPLE VIDYANAGAR, DAVANAGERE-577005



AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE

DIRECTIONS AND THEREBY QUASH/SET-ASIDE THE

IMPUGNED ORDER/ENDORSEMENT DATED 16.11.2016 ISSUED

BY THE R-3 (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE

R-3 TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER IN

ACCORDANCE WITH LAW & ETC. IN WP NO 2076 OF 2019

BETWEEN : B.R. ASHWATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O T.RAMAPPA BHOMMAHALLI VILLAGE MANDIKAL HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK & DISTRICT

... PETITIONER (BY SRI SHIVA KUMAR K.B., ADV.,)

41

AND : 1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

2. THE SECRETARY COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

3. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY, NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, (M.A) DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY, NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

5. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY, MINERALS DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPURA-562 101

6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPURA CHIKKABALLAPURA-562 105

7. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPURA-562 105

8. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT, CHIKKABALLAPURA-562 105




42

QUASH ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT

DATED 29-06-2017 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A & ETC.

IN WP NO. 2193 OF 2019 & WP NO.5383/2019

BETWEEN : M/S. CRYSTALLINE ROCKS PVT. LTD. NO.94, 20TH MAIN ROAD 6TH "A" CROSS, 1ST STAGE 1ST PHASE, B.T.M. LAYOUT BANGALORE-560 029 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR A. DINDUR AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS


REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, (MSME & MINES), VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

2. THE DIRECTOR / COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY, KHANIJA BHAVANA, R.C. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY, KANDAYA BHAVANA, (D.C.S OFFICE BLDG.), RAMANAGARA-562 127.


43




THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINES &

GEOLOGY, BANGALORE REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF

THE PETITIONER FOR GRANT OF QUARRY LEASE FOR

QUARRYING MULTI COLOUR GRANITE OVER AN EXTENT OF

5.00 ACRES IN SY.NO.53 & 101 OF DODDANGANGAVADI

VILLAGE, RAMANAGAR TALUK, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT. COPY

OF THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 14.09.2017 ISSUED BY THE

DEPUTY DIRECTOR HAS BEEN PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A &

ETC.

IN WP NO. 2194 OF 2019

BETWEEN : M/S CRYSTALLINE ROCKS PVT. LTD NO.94, 20TH MAIN ROAD 6TH ‘A’ CROSS, 1ST STAGE 1ST PHASE, BTM LAYOUT BANGALORE-560 029 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI CHANDRASHEKAR A DINDUR AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,


REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT (MSME & MINES), VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001

2. THE DIRECTOR/COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVANA, R.C. ROAD BANGALORE-560 001

44

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KANDAYA BHAVANA (D.C’S OFFICE BLDG), RAMANAGAR -562 127




QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD:14.9.2017 ISSUED BY THE

DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY,

BANGALORE REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE


QUARRYING MULTI COLOUR GRANITE OVER AND EXTENT OF

6.20 ACRES IN SY NO.53 OF DODDAGANGAVADI VILLAGE,

RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, COPY OF

THE ENDORSEMENT DTD:14.9.2017 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY

DIRECTOR HAS BEEN PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A & ETC. IN WP NO. 2373 OF 2019

BETWEEN : CHRISTA S/O C. AROGYA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT 448D, NEAR POLICE QUARTERS SANDURU POST AND TALUK BELLARY DISTRICT - 583 119


REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001

2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. DEPT. OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES

45

VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001

3. THE DIRECTOR & COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001

4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (MINES) & COMPETENT AUTHORITY DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY BALLARI - 583 135.

5. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS OFFICE OF THE DCF, BALLARI DISTRICT BALLARI - 583 135.

6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT TASK FORCE (MINES) COMMITTEE, BALLARI DISTRICT BALLARI - 583 135







BEARING SY.NO.528 OF SHIVAPURA VILLAGE, KUDLIGI

TALUKA, BALLARI DISTRICT, OVER AN AREA OF 10.00 ACRES,

PURSUANT TO A QUARRY LEASE APPLICATION DATED

23.12.2009 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B, BY QUASHING OR

SETTING ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY R-4 DEPUTY

DIRECTOR, DATED 28.09.2016 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A &

ETC.

IN WP NO. 2854 OF 2019

BETWEEN : SMT. TAHOOR FATHIMA PANWALE D/O. AHAMED HUSSAIN PANWALE

46

HANUMASAGAR ROAD NEAR TAJ STADIUM WARD NO.2, ILKAL (RURAL) ILKAL VILLAGE, HUNGUND TALUK BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587 125

... PETITIONER (BY SRI K.B. SHIVA KUMAR, ADV.,) AND : 1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001

2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001

3. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001

4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001

5. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY BELLARY DISTRICT-583 101

6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELLARY DISTRICT BELLARY-583 101

7. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BELLARY DIVISION, BELLARY-583 101

47

8. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST BELLARY DIVISION BELLARY-583 101




QUASH ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE R-4 DTD:7.11.2017

PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

IN WP NO. 2987 OF 2019

BETWEEN : M/S CRYSTALINE ROCKS (P) LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI CHANDRASHEKAR A DINDUR S/O ANDANAPPA DINDUR AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.19 20TH MAIN ROAD, 6TH A CROSS, 1ST STAGE, 1ST PHASE, BTM LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560029

... PETITIONER (BY SRI V. SOMU, ADV.,) AND : 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES (MSME TEXTILE AND MINES) VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001

2. DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001

3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001

48

4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR

DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY RAMANAGARA DISTRICT RAMANAGARA-562101

5. DISTRICT TASK FORCE COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA DISTRICT RAMANAGARA-562101



AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL

FOR THE RECORDS WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTING IN

PASSING THE ENDORSEMENT VIDE ANNX-A DTD 14.09.2017

PASSED BY THE R-3 IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE

PROPERTY AND ETC.

IN WP NO. 2988 OF 2019

BETWEEN : M/S CRYSTALINE ROCKS (P) LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI CHANDRASHEKAR A. DINDUR S/O ANDANAPPA DINDUR AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.19 20TH MAIN ROAD, 6TH A CROSS, 1ST STAGE 1ST PHASE, BTM LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560029.


REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES (MSME TEXTILE AND MINES) VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001

49

2. DIRECTOR

DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001

3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY

KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR







PASSING THE ENDORSEMENT AT ANNEXURE-A DATED

14.09.2017 PASSED BY THE R-3 IN RESPECT OF THE

SCHEDULE PROPERTY & ETC.

IN WP NO. 2989 OF 2019

BETWEEN : M/S CRYSTALINE ROCKS (P) LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI CHANDRASHEKAR A. DINDUR S/O ANDANAPPA DINDUR AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.19 20TH MAIN ROAD, 6TH A CROSS, 1ST STAGE

50

1ST PHASE, BTM LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560029.





KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR








51


SCHEDULE PROPERTY & ETC.

IN WP NO. 2990 OF 2019

BETWEEN : M/S. JAI SRIRAM GRANITES REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI P SRINIVAS, S/O PALAKRUTHI SATHYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS HAVING ITS OFFICE AT SY NO.27 MANNERAL VILLAGE KUSTAGI TALUK KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL-584114

... PETITIONER (BY SRI V SOMU, ADV.,) AND : 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES (MSME, TEXTILE AND MINES) VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001



KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR / SENIOR GEOLOGIST

DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KUSTAGI TALUK KOPPAL DISTRICT KOPPAL-584114

52

5. DISTRICT TASK FORCE COMMITTEE

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND DEPUTY COMMISSONER KOPPAL DISTRICT KOPPAL-584114







SCHEDULE PROPERTY & ETC. IN WP NO 2992 OF 2019

BETWEEN : M/S SAI MANJUNATH ENTERPRISES REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI VIJAY KUMAR S/O H N MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 171/172 ASSESSMENT NO.67 SATANOOR VILLAGE, HANASAMARANAHALLI V.P JALA HOBLI BANGALORE-562157.


REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES (MSME, TEXTILE AND MINES) VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001

2. DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY

53

KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001

3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001

4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR / SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, CHIKKABALLAPUR-562101.

5. DISTRICT TASK FORCE COMMITTEE

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, CHIKKABALLAPUR-562101.




FOR THE RECORDS WICH ULTIMTELY RESULTING IN PASSING

THE ENDORSEMENT AT ANNEXURE-A DATED 17.06.2017

PASSED BY THE R-3 IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE

PROPERTY & ETC. IN WP NO. 3477 OF 2019

BETWEEN : SRI S.G. GANGARAJU SON OF CHIKKAGOPALAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDING AT SADAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 110

... PETITIONER (BY SRI PRAKASH B.S., ADV.,)

54


REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT (MSME & MINES) VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001

2. THE DIRECTOR / COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVANA R.C. ROAD BANGALORE-560 001

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001





THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINES &

GEOLOGY, BANGALORE, REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF

THE PETITIONER FOR GRANT OF QUARRY LEASE FOR

QUARRYING GREY GRANITE OVER AN EXTENT OF 4.26

ACRES IN SY.NO.75 OF MEESAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,

DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,

ORIGINAL ENDORSEMENT DATED 24.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE

DEPUTY DIRECTOR HAS BEEN PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A &

ETC. IN WP NO. 3478 OF 2019

BETWEEN : SMT. VENKATALAKSHMI WIFE OF N.M. RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

55

RESIDING AT NO.66, 2ND CROSS K.S.F.C. LAYOUT LINGARAJAPURAM BANGALORE-560 084.


REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETWARY COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT (MSME& MINES), VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001

2. THE DIRECTOR/COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVANA, R.C. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001

3. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & DISTRICT OFFICES COMPLEX SIDLAGHATTA ROAD CHIKKABALLAPURA-562 101





THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINES &

GEOLOGY, CHIKKABALLAPUR REJECTING THE APPLICATION

OF THE PETITIONER FOR GRANT OF QUARRY LEASE FOR

QUARRYIG BUILDING STONE OVER AN EXTENT OF 5.00

ACRES IN SY.NO.32 OF SABBENAHALLI VILLAGE,

GOURIBIDANUR TALUK, CHICKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.

ORIGINAL ENDORSEMENT DATED 15.07.2017 ISSUED BY THE

SENIOR GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY,

CHIKKABALLAPUR HAS BEEN PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A &

ETC.

56

IN WP NO. 3479 OF 2019

BETWEEN : SMT. VENKATALAKSHMI W/O N M RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO.66, 2ND CROSS K.S.F.C. LAYOUT LINGARAJAPURAM BANGALORE-560 084

... PETITIONER (BY SRI RAKASH B.S, ADV.,) AND : 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA


2. THE DIRECTOR/COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVANA R.C. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001.




QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD 24.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE

DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY,

BANGALORE REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE


QUARRYING GREY GRANITE OVER AN EXTENT OF 2.20

57

ACRES IN SY.NO.75 OF MEESAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,

DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,

ORIGINAL ENDORSEMENT DTD 24.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE

DEPUTY DIRECTOR HAS BEEN PRODUCED AT ANNX-A & ETC. IN WP NO. 3495 OF 2019

BETWEEN : K. RAJASHEKHAR S/O K. RAMANNA R/AT 121, GUDDINI VILLAGE MANAVI TALUK, RAICHUR DISTRICT-584123


REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001

2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. DEPT. OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001

3. THE DIRECTOR & COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560001

4. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST (MINES) & COMPETENT AUTHORITY DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY, RAICHUR-584101

5. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS OFFICE OF THE DCF, RAICHUR DISTRICT RAICHUR-584101

58

6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER &

CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT TASK FORCE (MINES) COMMITTEE, RAICHUR DISTRICT RAICHUR-584101




DIRECT THE R-4 SENIOR GEOLOGIST & COMPETENT

AUTHORITY, TO GRANT AND EXECUTE A QUARRY LEASE TO


BEARING SY.NO.10 OF BHURANAPUR VILLAGE, MANAVI

TALUKA, RAICHUR DISTRICT, OVER AN AREA OF 04.00 ACRES,

PURSUANT TO A QUARRY LEASE APPLICATION DTD.

28.07.2016 PRODUCED AT ANNX-B, BY QUASHING OR

SETTING ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY R-4 SENIOR

GEOLOGIST, DTD. 22.12.2016 PRODUCED AT ANNX-A & ETC. IN WP NO. 4145 OF 2019

BETWEEN : M/S. LAVEN ESTATES NO 415/B, 7TH MAIN ROAD HANUMANTHA NAGAR BENGALURU - 560019 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI M.R. BALASUBRAMANYA

... PETITIONER (BY SRI SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADV.,) AND : 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETAWRY TO GOVERNMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560001

2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE &

59

INDUSTRIES, VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560001

3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560001

4. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS KOLAR SUB DIVISION GAJALADINNE KOLAR - 563102

5. THE DEPUTY COMMSSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR – 563102

6. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

KOLAR SUB DIVISION KOLAR - 563102

7. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560001

8. DISTRICT TASK FORCE (MINES) COMMITTEE HEADED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AS ITS CHAIRMAN, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR KOLAR DISTRICT - 563102

9. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GELOGY KOLAR - 563102




QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER/ENDORSEMENT DTD

60

18.11.2016 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST, MINES AND

GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, KOLAR VIDE ANNX-F TO THE WRIT

PETITION AND ETC. IN WP NO. 4459 OF 2019

BETWEEN : KARTHIK SHEKAR S S/O. SOMASHEKAR SADAHALLY VILLAGE AND POST DEVANAHALLI TALUK-562110 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT


REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001

2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001

3. THE DIRECTOR & COMMISSIONER & COMPETENT AUTHORITY DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560001

4. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY & CHAIRMAN RULE 11 COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED UNDER KMMC RULES, 1994 VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001

5. THE CHAIRMAN & DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT TASK FORCE (MINES) COMMITTEE CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101


61



DIRECT THE R-3, DIRECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY TO

GRANT AND EXECUTE A QUARRY LEASE TO EXTRACT GREY

GRANITE OVER AN AREA OF 1.25 ACRES IN SY.NO.116 OF

GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE IN CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUKA AND

DISTRICT FOR A PERIOD OF 30 YEARS, AS PER QL

APPLICATION DATED 19.08.2013 FILED BY THIS PETITIONER,

PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A & ETC. IN WP NO. 4600 OF 2019

BETWEEN : NAGARAJU P.N. S/O NAGE GOWDA P.K. AGED 36 YEARS, NO.779/1, ANJANPURA AMRUTHANAGAR MAIN ROAD LEFT SIDE BENGALURU SOUTH BENGALURU DISTRICT-560062

... PETITIONER (BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR K.B., ADV.,) AND : 1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560001

2. THE SECRETARY (MSME & MINES) COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560001

3. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU – 560009

4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (M.A.)

DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY

62

NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU – 560 009

5. THE SENIOR GELOGIST

DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY MINERALS DIVISION CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562101 6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

CHIKKABALLAPURA CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562105

7. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562105

8. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST TERRITORIAL CHIKKABALLAPURA CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562105




QUASH ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY R-4 DTD:22.07.2017

PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. IN WP NO. 5815 OF 2019

BETWEEN : SRI G.S. VASANTH KUMAR S/O SIDDALINGAPPA R/AT KENCHAPURA GATE NANDI POST, TARIKERE TALUK CHICKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 102



63

COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT (MSME & MINES) VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001

2. THE DIRECTOR/COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVANA, R.C. ROAD BANGALORE-560 001

3. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY CHIKKAMAGALUR-577 102





SENIOR GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND

GEOLOGY, CHICKMAGALURU REJECTING THE APPLICATION



ACRE IN SY NO.26 OF H.THIMMAPURA VILLAGE, THARIKERE

TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT, CERTIFIED COPY OF THE

ENDORSEMENT DTD:26.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE R-3 SENIOR

GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY,

CHICKMAGALURU HAS BEEN PRODUCED AT ANNEXUER-A &


BETWEEN : SRI L.N. SANJEEVKUMAR S/O NEELAKANTAN AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT MIDDLE SCHOOL ROAD LAKKAVALLI TARIKERE TALUK CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 102


64



2. THE DIRECTOR/COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVANA R.C. ROAD BANGALORE-560 001






SENIOR GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND

GEOLOGY, CHICKMAGALURU REJECTING THE APPLICATION



ACRE IN SY NO.26 OF H.THIMMAPURA VILLAGE, THARIKERE

TALUK, CHICKAMAGALUR DISTRICT. CERTIFIED COPY OF THE

ENDORSEMENT DTD:26.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE R-3 SENIOR

GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY,

CHICKMAGALURU HAS BEEN PRODUCED AT ANNEXUER ‘A’ &


BETWEEN : SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR B.B. AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O B.P. BASAVARAJ

65

RESIDING AT # 217, FIRST STAGE FIFTH PHASE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD BANGALORE - 560 044


REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT (MSME & MINES) VIKAS SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001

2. THE DIRECTOR/COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVANA, R.C.ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001

3. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & DISTRICT OFFICES COMPLEX SIDLAGHATTA ROAD CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101




QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD:11.4.2017 ISSUD BY THE R-3

REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER FOR

GRANT OF QUARRY LEASE FOR QUARRYING BUILDING

STONE OVER AN EXTENT OF 10.00 ACRES IN SY NO.22 OF

HULIKUNTE VILLAGE, GOURIBIDANUR TALUK,

CHICKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. COPY OF THE ENDORSEMENT

DTD:11.4.2017 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST,

DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, CHIKKABALLAPUR

HAS BEEN PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A.

66

IN WP NO. 7810 OF 2019

BETWEEN : M/S. SRI KETHABYRESHWARA ENTERPRISES PROPRIETOR: S. MAHESH S/O S.K. SUBBANNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/O NO.77, BEHIND GLPS SADAHALLI VILLAGE & POST DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU-562 110

... PETITIONER (BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR K.B., ADV.,) AND : 1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001

2. THE SECRETARY COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT (MSME & MINES), VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001

3. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001

4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (M.A) DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001

5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 13TH FLOOR, V.V. TOWERS DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001

67

6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU-560 001

7. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION DODDABALLAPURA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 203

8. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT DIVISION SAVUKANAHALLI GATE DEVANAHALLI BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT




QUASH ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE R-4 DATED

31.08.2017/24.11.2017 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

IN WP NO. 8141 OF 2019

BETWEEN : ANJANEYA ACHARI S/O NARAYANACHARI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT BESTARAHALLI VILLAGE MUDAGANURU POST-563 131 MULABAGILU TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT


REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001

68

2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT.

DEPT. OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001

3. THE DIRECTOR & COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001

4. SENIOR GEOLOGIST (MINES) & COMPETENT AUTHORITY DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KOLAR-563 102

5. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS OFFICE OF THE DCF GAJALADINNE KOLAR-563 101

6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT TASK FORCE (MINES) COMMITTEE, KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR-563 101




DIRECT THE R-4 SENIOR GEOLOGIST & COMPETENT



BEARING SY.NO.207 OF KONDIHALLI VILLAGE, MULABAGILU

TALUKA, KOLAR DISTRICT, OVER AN AREA OF 01.20 ACRES,

PURSUANT TO QUARRY LEASE APPLICATION DTD 25.01.2016

VIDE ANNX-A, FOR DEEMING TO HAVE RECEIVED OR

OBTAINED REVENUE NOC, FOREST NOC & TECHNICAL

REPORT AS PER LAW & ETC.

69

IN WP NO. 8263 OF 2019

BETWEEN : SRI B.S. MUKUNDARAO S/O B.S.NAGARAJ RAO AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O NO.478, VENKATESHWARA NILAYA 4TH WARD, OPP DR. KOPIKAR EYE HOSPITAL PATEL NAGAR, HOSPET BELLARY DISTRICT - 583 128.

... PETITIONER (BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA S., ADV.,)


REP. BY ITS SECRETARY (MINES) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES VIKAS SOUDHA, 1ST FLOOR BANGALORE - 560 001

2. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY HOSPET - 583 201.




QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT

DTD:28.9.2016/13.10.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-F ISSUED BY THE

R-3 AND ETC.

IN WP NO 8264 OF 2019

BETWEEN : SRI B. RAGHAVENDRA KASHYAP S/O B.G.N. MURTHY

70

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O NO.174, 5TH WARD MARIYAMMANAHALLI HOSPET TALUK BELLARY DISTRICT - 583 222.

... PETITIONER (BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA S., ADV.,) AND : 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REP. BY ITS SECRETARY (MINES) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES VIKAS SOUDHA, 1ST FLOOR BANGALORE - 560 001

2. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY HOSPET - 583 201




QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DTD:28.9.2016/

13.10.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-F ISSUED BY THE R-3 AND ETC. IN WP NO. 10445 OF 2019

BETWEEN : SRI BASKAR S/O KANNAN AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO.1, BISALVADI VILLAGE CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR-571127

... PETITIONER (BY SRI MOHAMED RIZWAN AHAMED, ADV.,)

71


REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001

2. THE DIRECTOR OF MINES & GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN 5TH FLOOR, RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560001

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY NO.316, 317, 3RD FLOOR ZILLADALITHA BHAVAN B. RACHAIAH ROAD CHAMARAJANAGAR-571440

4. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY & CHAIRMAN RULE 11 COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED UNDER KMMC RULES 1994 VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001

5. THE CHAIRMAN & DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT TASK FORCE (MINES) COMMITTEE CHAMARAJANAGAR-571440




DIRECT THE R-3 AND R-5 TO GRANT THE QUARRYING LEASE

SUBJECT TO SUCH OTHER CONDITIONS AS MAY BE

SPECIFIED AS ENVISAGED UNDER SUB-RULE (7) OF RULE 8

OF THE KARNATAKA MINERAL CONCESSIONS RULES

[AMENDMENT] RULES 2016, VIDE ANNEXURE-A DTD:25.7.2014

VIDE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AT ANNEXURE-B & ETC.

72

IN WP NO. 10602 OF 2019

BETWEEN : R. BHAVYA W/O R UMESH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/A NO.413 ARISHINAKUNTE NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562123


REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU BENGALURU-560001

2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVT DEPT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU BENGALURU-560001

3. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560001

4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (MINES) & COMPETENT AUTHORITY DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY RAMNAGAR-562159

5. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS OFFICE OF THE DCF RAMNAGAR DISTRICT RAMNAGAR-562159

73

6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT TASK FORCE (MINES) COMMITTEE, RAMNAGAR DISTRICT RAMNAGAR-562159













ANNEXURE-A & ETC. IN WP NO. 10608 OF 2019

BETWEEN : SMT. GANGAMMA W/O G. RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT BETTAHALLI PALYA SRIGIRIPURA POST KUDURU HOBLI MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGAR DISTRICT 561 101



74

2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. DEPT. OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGLAURU BENGALURU-560 001

3. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001


5. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS OFFICE OF THE DCF RAMNAGAR DISTRICT RAMNAGAR-562 159

6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT TASK FORCE (MINES) COMMITTEE, RAMNAGAR DISTRICT RAMNAGAR-562 159

... RESPONDENTS













ANNEXURE-A & ETC.

75

IN WP NO. 10631 OF 2019

BETWEEN : R. UMESH S/O G. RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT NO.413, ARISHINAKUNTE, NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562123


REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA

BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVT.

DEPT. OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU BENGALURU-560 001

3. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001

4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (MINES) AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, RAMNAGAR-562 159

5. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS OFFICE OF THE DCF, RAMNAGAR DISTRICT, RAMNAGAR-562 159



76












ANNEXURE-A & ETC.

IN WP NO. 10632 OF 2019

BETWEEN : SMT. L. JAYAMMA W/O. LATE KENCHAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT KRISHNAPURA VILLAGE SOMPURA HOBLI, DABASPET POST NELAMANGALA TALUKA-562 111 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT


REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALORE BENGALURU-560 001

2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. DEPT. OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU BENGALURU-560 001

3. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001

77

4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (MINES) &

COMPETENT AUTHORITY DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY RAMNAGAR-562 159

5. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS OFFICE OF THE DCF, RAMNAGAR DISTRICT RAMNAGAR-562 159








BEARING SY.NO. 96 OF BETTAHALLI VILLAGE, MAGADI



DATED 06.07.2016 PRODUCED AT ANNEXUER-B, BY



ANNEXURE-A & ETC. IN WP NO. 10633 OF 2019

BETWEEN : K. SHUBHAKAR S/O LATE KENCHAIAH AGED BOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO.29, KRISHNAPURA VILLAGE SOMPURA HOBLI, DABASPET POST NELAMANGALA TALUKA-562 111 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

... PETITIONER (BY SRI R.G. KOLLE, ADV.,)

78

AND : 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA

REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE BENGALURU-560 001

2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. DEPT. OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU BENGALURU-560 001

3. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001


5. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS OFFICE OF THE DCF RAMNAGAR DISTRICT RAMNAGAR-562 159

6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT TASK FORCE (MINES) COMMITTEE RAMNAGAR DISTRICT RAMNAGAR-562 159









79


DATED 06.07.2016 PRODUCED AT ANENXURE-B, BY



ANENXURE-A & ETC. IN WP NO. 10670 OF 2019

BETWEEN : MR N. ASHWATHAPPA S/O LATE. NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT NO. K. HOSUR VILLAGE KUNDANA HOBLI, KOIRA POST DEVANAHALLI TALUK-562110

... PETITIONER (BY SRI R. SRINIVASA GOWDA, ADV.,) AND : 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-01

2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-01

3. THE DIRECTORATE & COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-01

4. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY & CHAIRMEN RULE 11 COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED UNDER KMMC RULES 1994 VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-01

5. THE CHAIRMEN & DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT TASK FORCE (MINES) COMMITTEE

80

CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK & DISTRICT-562101.

6. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, CHIKKABALLAPUR-562101.





R-3 AS PER ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.

IN WP NO. 11158 OF 2019

BETWEEN : S.B. ANAND S/O BHEEMAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS BEHIND GARDEN ANGEL SCHOOL ESHWARA LAYOUT MEDAHALLI POST CHITRADRUGA TALUK DISTRICT-577501

... PETITIONER (BY SRI K.V. SATEESHCHANDRA, ADV.,) AND : 1. GOVT. OF KARNATAKA

REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001

2. THE SECRETARY COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE VIKAS SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001

81

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF MINES & GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY CHITRADURGA -577 501

4. THE DIRECTOR DEPT. OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN BANGALORE-560001





DATED 18.02.2017, ISSUED BY R-3 AS PER ANNEXURE-B AND

ETC.

IN WP NO. 11160 OF 2019

BETWEEN : SRIDEVI A W/O RAVINDRA KUMAR A AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS #D8/2, VIDHYA NAGAR THRORNGALLU POST SANDOOR TALUK BELLARY -583273

... PETITIONER (BY SRI K.V. SATEESHCHANDRA, ADV.,) AND : 1. GOVT. OF KARNATAKA

REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001

2. THE SECRETARY COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001

82

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF MINES & GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY CHITRADURGA-577 501

4. THE DIRECTOR DEPT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN, BANGALORE-560001




QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 30.03.2017,

ISSUED BY R-3 AS PER ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.

IN WP NO. 11452 OF 2019

BETWEEN : SRI R. NARAYANASWAMY S/O. RANGASWAMY NAIDU R/AT VIAYANAGAR MAIN ROAD BHADRAVATHI-577 301 CHICKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.



REP. BY ITS SECRETARY COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT (MSME & MINES), VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001

2. THE DIRECTOR / COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVANA, R.C. ROAD BANGALORE-560001



83





GEOLOGY, CHICKAMAGALUR REJECTING THE APPLICATION



ACRE IN SY.NO.22 OF PIRUMENAHALLI VILLAGE, THARIKERE

TALUK, CHICKAMAGALUR DISTRICT. CERTIFIED COPY OF

THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 22/24/10/2016 ISSUED BY THE

R-3, SENIOR GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINES &

GEOLOGY, CHICKAMAGALUR HAS BEEN PRODUCED AT

ANNEXURE 'A' & ETC.

IN WP NO. 11453 OF 2019

BETWEEN : SRI G.C. KIRAN S/O. G.H. CHANDRASHEKARAPPA, R/AT BEERALINGESHWARA NILAYA, SRI. M V ROAD, TYAGARAJANAGARA, THARIKERE, CHICKAMAGALUR DISTRICT- 577 228


REP BY ITS SECRETARY COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT (MSME & MINES) VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001

2. THE DIRECTOR / COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVANA R.C. ROAD,

BANGALORE-560001

84



THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 26.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY, CHICKMAGALUR REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER FOR GRANT OF QUARRY LEASE FOR QUARRYING BUILDING STONE OVER AN EXTENT OF 2.00 ACRES IN SY.NO.26 OF H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE, THARIKERE TALUK, CHICKAMAGALUR DISTRICT. CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 26.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE R-3, SENIOR GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY, CHICKAMAGALUR HAS BEEN PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE ‘A’ & ETC. IN WP NO. 11454 OF 2019

BETWEEN : SRI G.C. KIRAN S/O. G.H. CHANDRASHEKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT “BEERALINGESHWARA NILAYA” SRI. M.V. ROAD TYAGARAJANAGARA, THARIKERE CHICKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 228


REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT (MSME & MINES), VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001.

2. THE DIRECTOR / COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY

85

KHANIJA BHAVANA R.C. ROAD, BANGALORE-560001

3. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY CHIKKAMAGALUR-577 102.






GEOLOGY, CHICKAMAGALUR REJECTING THE APPLICATION



ACRES IN SY.NO.22 OF PIRUMENAHALLI VILLAGE, THARIKERE

TALUK, CHICKAMAGALUR DISTRICT. CERTIFIED COPY OF

THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 22/24/10/2016 ISSUED BY THE

R-3, SENIOR GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINES &

GEOLOGY, CHICKAMAGALUR HAS BEEN PRODUCED AT

ANNEXURE-'A' & ETC.

IN WP NO. 11455 OF 2019

BETWEEN : SRI K.S. MAHENDRA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O. SUBBEGOWDA PROPRIETOR, M/S BALAJI CONSTRUCTION NO. 138, 2ND FLOOR VEERANNASWAMY NILAYA 6TH MAIN, VINAYAKANAGAR BANGALORE-560063



86

COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT (MSME & MINES) VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001

2. THE DIRECTOR / COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVANA, R.C. ROAD, BANGALORE-560001

3. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & DISTRICT OFFICES COMPLEX SIDLAGHATTA ROAD

CHIKKABALLAPURA – 562101 ... RESPONDENTS





THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, (M.A.), DEPARTMENT OF MINES &

GEOLOGY, BANGALORE. THE COPY OF THE ENDORSEMENT

DATED 04.07.2017 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR HAS

BEEN PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-'A' & ETC. IN WP NO. 12249 OF 2019

BETWEEN : SMT. ASWATHAMMA W/O SHIVAPPA AGED 50 YEARS R/O MUDDUREDDYHALLI SOMENAHALLI HOBLI GUDIBANDE TALUK - 561 209 CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT

... PETITIONER (BY SRI K.B. SHIVA KUMAR, ADV.,) AND : 1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

87

VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001

2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001

3. THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001

4. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001

5. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST (MINES) DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101

6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 105

7. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 105

8. THE CHAIRMAN DISTRICT TASK FORCE COMMITTEE CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 105

.. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)



QUASH ANNEXURE-A DATED 25.07.2017 PASSED BY THE R-5

AND ETC.

88

IN WP NO. 12678 OF 2019

BETWEEN : SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA W/O. SEENAPPA @ SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS OCC: STONE QUARRYING R/AT: CHIKKANAGAVALLI VILLAGE MANDIKAL HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561209

... PETITIONER (BY SRI ANJANEYA A.B., ADV.,) AND : 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY ITS SECRETARY (MINES SSI & TEXTILE) COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE-560001

2. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560001

3. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY ROOM NO. S.A. 10 2ND FLOOR DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE PATERNAHALLI CHIKKABALLAPURA-562127

4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE PATRENAHALLI CHIKKABALLAPURA-562127

5. THE DISTRICT TASK FORCE REP. BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

89

DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT CHIKKABALLAPRUA-562127




QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 21.10.2017 ISSUED BY R-3

VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND CONSEQUENTLY ISSUE DIRECTION

BY DIRECTING THE R-3 AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER THE

APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN NO. FORM

AQL VOL.NO.IV SERIAL NO.178/2015-16 DATED 29.03.2016 AS

PER ANNEXURE-A OF WRIT PETITION AND TO GRANT

LICENSE AND TO EXECUTE THE MINING LEASE TO THE

EXTENT OF 02-00 ACRES IN SY.NO.43 SITUATED AT

CHIKKANAGAVALLI VILLAGE, MANDIKAL HOBLI,

CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT FORTHWITH & ETC. IN WP NO. 14091 OF 2019

BETWEEN : SRI B.M. KONDAPPA S/O MUNINANJAPPA R/O BETTENAHALLI HEGGANAHALLI (P.O.) DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL-562 110



2. THE DIRECTOR/COMMISSIONER

90

DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVANA, R.C.ROAD BANGALORE-560 001






THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST, (MINERAL), DEPARTMENT OF

MINES & GEOLOGY, CHIKKABALLAPUR, REJECTING THE

APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER FOR GRANT OF QUARRY

LEASE FOR QUARRYING BUILDING STONE OVER AN EXTENT

OF 5.00 ACRES IN SY.NO.114 OF NANDANAGANAHALLI

VILLAGE, MANDIKAL HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK,

CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. THE COPY OF THE


GEOLOGIST HAS BEEN PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A & ETC.

IN WP NO. 14093 OF 2019

BETWEEN : SRI G.P. KUMARA SWAMY SON OF LATE G.L.PAPANNA R/O NO.63, BETTAHALASURU CROSS BEHIND BANK OF INDIA ATM BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE-562157

... PETITIONER (BY SRI PRAKASH B S, ADV.,) AND : 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA


91

COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT (MSME & MINES) VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001

2. THE DIRECTOR / COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVANA, R.C.ROAD BANGALORE-560001

3. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & DISTRICT OFFICES COMPLEX SIDLAGHATTA ROAD CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101









OF 6.00 ACRES IN SY.NO.114 OF NANDANAGANAHALLI

VILLAGE, MADIKAL HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK,

CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. THE COPY OF THE


GEOLOGIST HAS BEEN PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A & ETC.

IN WP NO. 14402 OF 2019

BETWEEN : SRI G.K. CHANDRASHEKAR AGED 29 YEARS SON OF G.P. KUMARASWAMY R/O. NO.63, BETTAHALASURU CROSS

92

BEHIND BANK OF INDIA ATM BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE-562 157




3. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & DISTRICT OFFICES COMPLEX, SIDLAGHATTA ROAD CHIKKABALLAPURA-562 101





SENIOR GEOLOGIST, [MINERAL], DEPARTMENT OF MINES

AND GEOLOGY, CHIKKABALLAPUR, REJECTING THE



OF 5.00 ACRES IN SY NO.36 OF THIRUMANI VILLAGE,

GUDIBANDE TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. THE COPY

OF THE ENDORSEMENT DTD:22.8.2017 ISSUED BY THE

SENIOR GEOLOGIST HAS BEEN PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A

& ETC.

93

IN WP NO. 14403 OF 2019

BETWEEN : SRI K. GOVINDARAJU SON OF M. KRISHNAPPA R/O. NO. 63, BETTAHALASURU CROSS BEHIND BANK OF INDIA ATM BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE-562 157

... PETITIONER (By Sri PRAKASH B.S., ADV.,) AND : 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA







QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD. 22.07.2017 ISSUED BY THE

SENIOR GEOLOGIST, (MINERAL), DEPARTMENT OF MINES &

GEOLOGY, CHIKKABALLAPUR, REJECTING THE APPLICATION


94


ACRES IN SY.NO.36 OF THIRUMANI VILLAGE, GUDIBANDE

TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. THE COPY OF THE

ENDORSEMENT DTD. 22.07.2017 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR

GEOLOGIST HAS BEEN PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-‘A’ & ETC. IN WP NO. 14404 OF 2019

BETWEEN : SRI. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS S/O PERUMAL R/AT BETTAHALASUR VILLAGE AND POST BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE RURAL-562110

... PETITIONER (BY SRI PRAKASH B.S, ADV.,) AND : 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT (MSME AND MINES) VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001

2. THE DIRECTOR/COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVANA, R.C.ROAD BANGALORE-560 001

3. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT OFFICES COMPLEX SIDLAGHATTA ROAD CHIKKABALLAPURA-562 101





95

SENIOR GEOLOGIST [MINERAL] DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND

GEOLOGY, CHIKKABALLAPUR, REJECTING THE APPLICATION



ACRES IN SY.NO.114 OF NANDANAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,

MADIKAL HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR

DISTRICT. THE COPY OF THE ENDORSEMENT DTD: 1.9.2017

ISSUED BY THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST HAS BEEN PRODUCED

AT ANNEXURE-‘A’ & ETC. IN WP NO. 15541 OF 2019

BETWEEN : SRI M.R. PRAKASH S/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.28, MARENAHALLI BANGALORE NORTH BANGALORE URBAN-562 149

... PETITIONER (BY SRI M. BABU RAO, ADV.,) AND : 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

R/BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE

BANGALORE-01. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-01.

3. THE DIRECTOR & COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-01.

4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY CHIKKABALLAPUR CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562 101

96

5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPUR CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562 101

6. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS OFFICE OF THE DCF FOREST DEPARTMENT, CHIKKABALLAPUR CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562 101




QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 1.7.2017 ISSUED BY THE

R-3, I.E. DIRECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY PRODUCED

AT ANNEXURE-‘A’, AS PER QUARRY LEASE APPLICATION DTD

26.2.2015 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-‘B’ SEEKING GRANT OF

QUARRY LEASE TO EXTRACT ORNAMENTAL STONES IN GOVT

LAND BEARING SY.NO.5 GUMMALAPURA VILLAGE

CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT

OVER AN AREA OF 4 ACRES AS SHOWN IN THE SKETCH &

ETC. IN WP NO. 15906 OF 2019

BETWEEN : SRI S. DIWAKAR SHETTY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O PADDMAIAH SHETTY VARKODAU VILLAGE OPP. KODACHADRI COLLEGE HOSANAGARA TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577418

... PETITIONER (BY SRI RAMESHCHANDRA, ADV.,) AND : 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001

97

2. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST (MINERAL)

DEPART OF MINES AND GEOLOGY AC OFFICE BUILDING 2ND FLOOR, SHIVAMOGGA-577201

3. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560001

4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA-577201




QUASH ANNEXURE-‘A’, ORDER DATED 29.09.2016 PASSED BY

THE R-2 & ETC.

IN WP NO. 16430 OF 2019

BETWEEN : B.A. SRIHARIREDDY S/O. ADHINARAYANAREDDY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS KAGAMAPALLI VILLAGE BALAREDDIPALLI POST BAGEPALLI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561212.



98

2. DIRECTOR/COMMISSIONER

DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KANIJA BHAVAN R.C.ROAD BANGALORE-560001

3. SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY OFFICE OF THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST ROOM NO.S.A-10, 2ND FLOOR JILLADALITHA BHAVANA CHIKKABALLAPURA 562101






14 AND 19(1) (g) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA & ETC.

IN WP NO 16432 OF 2019

BETWEEN : M.V. RAMANAREDDY S/O LATE Y. VENKATAREDDY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS LAKKASANDRA (M) MANGALAMADUGUVARIPALLI BAGEPALLI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561212



99

2. DIRECTOR/COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KANIJA BHAVAN R.C. ROAD BANGALORE-560001

3. SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY OFFICE OF THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST ROOM NO.S.A.-10, 2ND FLOOR JILLADALITHA BHAVANA CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101




QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 22/07/2017 ISSUED BY


14 AND 19(1) (g) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.

IN WP NO. 19358 OF 2019

BETWEEN : SRI G.S. SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE M. SADASHIVAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.58 1ST MAIN ROAD, E STREET NEW GUDDADAHALLI, MYSORE ROAD BANGALORE-560026

... PETITIONER (BY SRI CHOKKAREDDY, ADV.,) AND : 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA

REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001

2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND INDUSTRIES,

100

VIKAS SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001

3. DIRECTOR AND COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560001

4. SENIOR GEOLOGIST AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY PATRENAHALLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101

5. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION CHIKKABALLAPURA-562105

6. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST CHIKKABALLAPURA CHIKKABALLAPURA-562105




QUASH ANNEXURE-A DATED 21.10.2017 PASSED BY R-4 &

ETC.

IN WP NO. 20091 OF 2019

BETWEEN : SRI H.G. SUDHAKAR S/O LATE H.B. GIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS HOSAHALLI VILLAGE HOSA GADDE POST THIRHAHALLI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA-577201

... PETITIONER (BY SRI RAMESHCHANDRA, ADV.,)

101


REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. B.R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001

2. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST (MINERAL) DEPART OF MINES & GEOLOGY AC OFFICE BUILDING 2ND FLOOR, SHIVAMOGGA-577201

3. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560001

4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA-577201

5. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST SHIVAMOGGA DIVISION SHIVAMOGGA-577201




QUASH ANNEXURE-A DATED 2.3.2019 PASSED BY THE R-2 &

ETC.

IN WP NOS. 20093-20094 OF 2019

BETWEEN : SRI G.P. SATHYANARAYANA S/O G.R. PUTTAPPAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS BASAVANI VILLAGE AND POST THIRTHAHALLI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201

... PETITIONER (BY SRI RAMESHCHANDRA, ADV.,)

102


REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001

2. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST (MINERAL) DEPART OF MINES & GEOLOGY AC OFFICE BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201

3. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001

4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201

5. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST SHIVAMOGGA DIVISION SHIVAMOGGA – 577 201




QUASH ANNEXURE-A DATED 29.09.2016 PASSED BY R-2 &

ETC.

IN WP NO. 22366 OF 2019

BETWEEN : SMT. SUREKHA SUMARAJ WIFE OF C.M. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O NO.34,1ST MAIN, 5TH CROSS A.K. GOPALAN COLONY

103

CHANNASANDRA KADUGODI POST BANGALORE-560067


REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT (MSME & MINES) VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001











OF 7.00 ACRES IN SY.NO.59 OF HOSAHUDYA VILLAGE,

BAGEPALLI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. THE COPY



& ETC.

104

IN WP NO. 22369 OF 2019

BETWEEN : M/S SHIVA TRANSPORTS PROPRIETORYSHIP CONCERN REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI D.M. NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS BHEEMAPURA VILLAGE SHIVANAPURA POST BANGALORE RURAL-562122












105


OF 5.00 ACRES IN SY.NO.65 OF GOUNAPALLI VILLAGE,




& ETC.

IN WP NO. 22370 OF 2019

BETWEEN : SRI Y.C. RAVINDRA KUMAR SON OF CHOUDAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O YOGAVABANDLAKERE VILLAGE BAGEPALLI POST BAGEPALLI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-561201

... PETITIONER (By Sri PRAKASH B.S., ADV.,) AND : 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA





106








OF 2.00 ACRES IN SY.NO.65 OF GAUNAPALLI VILLAGE,



SENIOR GEOLOGIST HAS BEEN PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-‘A’

& ETC. IN WP NO. 22385 OF 2019

BETWEEN : SMT. M SUNEETHA W/O M. BHANU PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS NO.194,15TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN "A" SECTOR, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN BENGALURU-560064


REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHAN SOUDHA

BENGALURU-560001 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT.

DEPT. OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES VIKAS SOUDHA

BENGALURU-560001 3. THE DIRECTOR & COMMISSIONER

DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560001

107

4. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST & COMPETENT AUTHORITY DEPT. OF MINES & GEOLOGY CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101

5. THE CHAIRMAN & DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT TASK FORCE (MINES) COMMITTEE CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101

6. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE ASST. COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101

7. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST OFFICE OF THE DCF,

FOREST DEPARTMENT CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101




DIRECT R-4 SENIOR GEOLOGIST & COMPETENT AUTHORITY

TO GRANT & EXECUTE A QUARRY LEASE TO EXTRACT

ORDINARY BUILDING STONES, IN GOVT. GOMAL LAND AT

SY.NO.39 OF KANIVENARAYANPURA VILLAGE IN

CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUKA, OVER AN AREA OF 04.00 ACRES

AS SHOWN IN THE SKETCH, FOR DEEMING TO HAVE

RECEIVED THE REVENUE & FOREST NOC AND TECHNICAL

REPORT AS PER QL APPLICATION DATED 08.08.2014 FILED BY

THIS PETITIONER BY QUASHING OR SETTING ASIDE THE

ENDORSEMENT DATED 21.10.2017, PRODUCED AT

ANNEXURE-C, B AND A RESPECTIVELY & ETC. IN WP NO. 22891 OF 2019

BETWEEN : M/S. OM SRINIVAS LORRY SERVICES REP. BY PROPRIETOR- P. GOPAL S/O. LATE PILLANJANAPPA AGE 48 YEARS KANNAMANGALA PALYA VILLAGE

108

KANNAMANGALA POST-562110 BENGALURU RURAL DIST


REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001

2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVT DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001

3. THE DIRECTOR OF COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGLAURU-560001

4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT V.V. TOWERS BEGNALURU-560001

5. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS BENGALURU RURAL FOREST DIVISION BENGALURU-560001

6. THE CHAIRMAN & DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT TASK FORCE (MINES) COMMITTEE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU-560001




DIRECT R-3 DIRECTOR TO GRANT & EXECUTE A QUARRY

LEASE TO EXTRACT ORNAMENTAL STONES, OVER AN AREA

OF 04.38 ACRES IN GOVT. KHARAB LAND AT SY.NO.30 OF

109

UGANAVADI VILLAGE IN DEVANAHALLI TALUKA, BENGALURU

RURAL DISTRICT VIDE QL APPLICATION DATED 26.09.2014

PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A FOR DEEMING TO HAVE

RECEIVED REVENUE NOC IN TERMS OF RULE 8(5) & (6) & ETC.

IN WP NO 23107 OF 2019

BETWEEN : SRI B.G. THIMMEGOWDA S/O. GUNDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT BASAVANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE MALLEDEVARAPURA POST HALEKOTE HOBLI HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 211.


REP. BY ITS SECRETARY COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT (MSME AND MINES) VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001

2. THE DIRECTOR / COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVANA R.C. ROAD BANGALORE-560001

3. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST (MINERAL) DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHB COLONY KUVEMPU NAGAR HASSAN-573 201


110




THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY,

DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY, HASSAN, REJECTING

THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER FOR GRANT OF

QUARRY LEASE FOR QUARRYING BUILDING STONE OVER AN

EXTENT OF 4.00 ACRES IN SY.NO.26, BASAVANAYAKANAHALLI

VILLAGE, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT. THE


GEOLOGIST, HAS BEEN PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-‘A’ & ETC.

IN WP NO. 23108 OF 2019

BETWEEN : SRI B.G. THIMMEGOWDA SON OF GUNDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDING AT BASAVANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE MALLEDEVARAPURA POST HALEKOTE HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 211


REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT (MSME & MINES) VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001

2. THE DIRECTOR / COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVANA, R.C. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001

3. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST (MINERAL) DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY K.H.B. COLONY, KUVEMPU NAGAR, HASSAN-573 201


111




THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY,

DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY, HASSAN, REJECTING

THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER FOR GRANT OF

QUARRY LEASE FOR QUARRYING BUILDING STONE OVER AN

EXTENT OF 1.30 ACRES IN SY.NO.26, BASAVANAYAKANAHALLI

VILLAGE, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT. THE


GEOLOGIST, HAS BEEN PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-‘A’ & ETC. IN WP NO. 2991 OF 2019

BETWEEN : M/S SAI GRANITES REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI P SATHYA NARAYANA S/O PALAKRUTHI SOMARAJU AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDING AT MANNERAL VILLAGE KABBARAGI ROAD HANUMASAGAR POST KUSTAGI TALUK KOPPAL DISTRICT-584114



2. DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001


112

KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001

4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR / SENIOR GEOLOGIST

DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KUSTAGI TALUK, KOPPAL DISTRICT KOPPAL-584114

5. DISTRICT TASK FORCE COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL-584114

.. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)






SCHEDULE PROPERTY & ETC. IN WP NO 20689 OF 2019

BETWEEN : NAVEEN B.V. S/O B. VENKATESHA AGED 34 YEARS, R/O YESHWANTHANAGAR SANDUR TALUK-583119, II WARD BELLARI DISTRICT

... PETITIONER (BY SRI SHIVA KUMAR K B, ADV.,) AND : 1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001

2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY COMMERCE AND

113

INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001

3. THE SECRETARY COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001

4. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001

5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY PARVAZ PLAZA, 3RD FLOOR, COLLEGE ROAD,

HOSPET-583201, BALLARI DISTRICT

6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BALLARI DISTRICT, BALLARI-582103

7. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST BALLARI DISTRICT, BALLARI-582103

8. THE CHAIRMAN DISTRICT TASK FORCE COMMITTEE BALLARI DISTRICT, BALLARI-582103

9. THE TAHASILDAR SANDUR TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT-582103




QUASH ANNEXURE-A DATED 28.09.2016/19.10.2016 PASSED

BY THE R-5 AND ETC.

IN WP NO 38427 OF 2018 BETWEEN SRI B RAJASHEKAR S/O LATE BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

114

R/AT NO. HUCCHAMMANA DODDI VILLAGE, M.G. PALYA POST, BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 109

... PETITIONER (BY SRI GANAPATHY BHAT VAJRALLI, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001

2. THE SECRETARY COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (MINES) VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001

3. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY RAMANAGARA -562 127

4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY SOUTH DIVISION, MYSORE-570 001

5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY RAMANAGARA-562 127


THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE BY ISSUING AN APPROPRIATE WRIT THAT THE KARNATAKA MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION [AMENDMENT] RULES, 2016 DTD:12.8.2016, AS PER ANNEXURE-F, IN SO FAR AS RULE 8B[1] IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, NULL AND VOID AND SAME TO BE STRUCK DOWN & ETC.

THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND

RESERVED, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER,

THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

115

ORDER

Overview

This group of petitions concerns interpretation of various

provisions of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules,

1994 (for short ‘the said Rules’) and in particular Rule 8-B as

well as a challenge to constitutional validity of sub-rule (1) of

Rule 8-B. The Rules have been framed by the State

Government in exercise of the power conferred by Section 15

of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act,

1957 (for short ‘the said Act of 1957’). Under Section 15, a

power is vested in the State Governments of making Rules for

regulating the grant of quarry leases, mining leases, or other

mineral concessions in respect of the minor minerals and for

the purposes connected therewith. Minor Minerals are defined

in clause (e) of Section 3 of the said Act of 1957. There were

extensive amendments made to the said Act of 1957 by the Act

No.10 of 2015 and in particular, by incorporating Section 10A,

with effect from 12th January, 2015. By the said Act, the

Central Legislature sought to remove discretion in the manner

of granting mining leases or quarry leases. With the object of

eliminating the discretion and improving transparency in the

116

allocation of mineral resources, auction regime was introduced

as a method of allotment of mining leases/prospecting licenses.

Thus, with effect from 12th January, 2015, auction regime was

introduced in the said Act of 1957.

2. Extensive amendments were made to the said Rules

with effect from 12th August 2016, inter alia, for introducing

auction regime. Rules 8-A and 8-B of the said Rules were

substituted by the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession

(Amendment) Rules, 2016 (for short “the said Amending

Rules”) which were published by the Notification dated 12th

August, 2016. The substituted Rule 8-B provided that all

applications for grant of mining lease or license received and

pending on the date of commencement of the amendment (i.e

12th August, 2016), shall become ineligible. Certain exceptions

were carved out to the said Rule as provided in sub-rule (2) of

Rule 8-B. The substituted Rule 8-A provided that from 12th

August 2016, all the applications for grant of quarry leases

shall be granted for a period of thirty years for specified minor

minerals and for a period of 20 years for the non-specified

minor minerals. It was also provided that all quarry leases or

licenses granted before 12th August, 2016 shall be deemed to

117

have been granted for a period of thirty years in respect of

specified minor minerals and for a period of twenty years in

respect of non-specified minor minerals from the date of its

original grant. Rule 8-B, as amended by the said Notification,

is relevant for our consideration and it reads thus:

8-B. Status of applications received. (1) All applications received and pending for grant of lease or license prior to the date of commencement of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2016, shall become ineligible including the applications received for grant of mining leases of the minerals that are now classified as minor mineral. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), the following shall remain eligible on and from the commencement of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2016, namely:-

(a) Applications received upon the notification issued under Rule 8-B existed before the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2016. (b) Where the Committee that existed under the provisions of Rule 11 or District Task Force Committee has recommended for grant of a quarrying lease or license for grant of mining lease, before the commencement of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2016.

118

(c) Where in the case of minerals now re-classified as minor mineral by the Central Government by Notification No.S.O.423(E), dated 10.2.2015, no objection certificates from revenue and forest departments and the approved mining plan from the Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM) have been received before commencement of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2016. (d) Applications received and pending for grant of lease or license in case of specified minor minerals before [16.6.2015] and for which No Objection Certificate (NOC) have been received in the office of Directorate of Mines and Geology from the Deputy Conservator of Forest for all Lands, Deputy Commissioner in case of Kharab lands, Assistant Commissioner (Revenue) and Deputy Director or Senior Geologist (Joint Inspection Report) in case of Gomala lands in accordance with the Circular No.RD.72.LGP. 98, dated 24.02.1999 before commencement of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2016 and shall be considered and disposed by the State Government, subject to obtaining No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned districts before grant;

[Note: The clause (d) printed above is a clause substituted by

the notification dated 18th July, 2017. The clause (d) as

amended on 12th August, 2016 read thus:

119

(d) Applications received before 16-6-2015 and for which No Objection Certificates (NOC) and reports as under sub-rule (5) of Rule 8 of these Rules have been received from the concerned departments before commencement of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2016; and] (d-1) Applications received and pending for grant of lease or license in the case of non-specified Minor Minerals before (16-6-2015) and for which No Objection Certificates (NOCs) have been received in the Department of Mines and Geology of the concerned District Office, from the Deputy Conservator of Forest for all lands, Tahsildar in the case of Kharab lands, Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Director of Senior Geologist (Joint inspection report), in the case of Gomala lands, before commencement of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2016, and shall be processed and decided by the District Task Force Committee as under the existing rules before commencement of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2016.

[Note: The clause (d-1) was added by the notification dated 6th

January, 2017, with effect from 12th August, 2016 and was

amended on 16th November, 2017]

(e) These applications shall be considered for grant of quarrying lease or license, or otherwise as per the provisions the existed before the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2016 subject to

120

fulfillment of the conditions specified for the same, if any and registration of leases or license deed within a period of (twenty-four months) from the date of commencement of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2016.

[Note: In the 12th August, 2016 amendment, the words “twelve

months” were incorporated. The same were substituted by

“twenty four months” on 18th November, 2017]

Provided that in case of grant of quarrying

lease or licence covered by clause (b), (c) and

(d) of sub-rule (2), the lessee shall pay, in

addition to the royalty, an amount which shall be

equal to the Average Additional Periodic

Payment payable by the holders of quarry lease

or licence granted through auction within the

Taluk, if such average is available for the Taluk,

or within the district if such average is not

available for the Taluk, or within the neighboring

district if such average is not available for the

district, and if such average is not available

within the neighboring district, such Average

Additional Periodic Payment shall be deemed to

be fifty percent of royalty. This deemed

percentage shall be reset after three years

based on average obtained in auction by

31.03.2019; and if no auctions have taken place

by 31.03.2019 for deriving the average from

121

Taluk, district or neighboring districts, as the

case may be, then the deemed rate will become

the final rate for the Average Additional Periodic

Payment;

Provided further that when such royalty

and Average Additional Periodic Payment is

paid, then the payment by the lessee for the

District Mineral Foundation shall be as payable

by the holders of lease or licence through

auction.

Provided also that in respect of any

mineral that are now re-classified as minor

minerals by the Central Government vide

Notification No.S.O.423 (E) dated 10.02.2015,

no quarrying lease or licence shall be granted

except with the previous approval of the State

Government.

(3) Where before the commencement of

the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession

(Amendment) Rules, 2016 a reconnaissance

permit or prospecting license has been granted

in respect of any land for any mineral, the permit

holders or the licensee shall have a right for

obtaining prospecting license followed by

quarrying lease, or licence, as the case may be,

in respect of that mineral in that land, if they

122

have carried out the reconnaissance or

prospecting in accordance with the terms and

conditions stipulated in their permit or licence.

Provided that on grant of quarry lease or

license in case of sub-rule (3), the lessee shall

pay, in addition to the royalty, an amount which

shall be equal to the Average Additional Periodic

Payment payable by the holders of quarry lease

or license granted thorough auction within the

Taluk if such average is available for the Taluk,

or within the District if such average is available

for the taluk, or within the District if such average

is not available for the Taluk, or within the

neighboring Districts if such average is not

available for the District, and if such average is

not available within the neighboring Districts,

such Average Additional Periodic Payment shall

be deemed to be fifty percent of royalty. This

deemed percentage shall be reset after three

years based on average obtained in auctions by

31.03.2019; and if no auctions have taken place

by 31.03.2019 for deriving the average from

Taluk, District or neighboring districts, as the

case may be, then the deemed rate will become

the final rate for the Average Additional Periodic

Payment:

123

Provided further that when such Royalty

and Average Additional Periodic Payment is

paid, then the payment by the lessee or holder

of license to the District Mineral Foundation shall

be as payable by the holders of lease or license

through auction.

(emphasis added)

3. Rule 8-B which is quoted above was substituted for the

earlier Rule 8-B. The earlier Rule 8-B was an enabling

provision, permitting the Competent Authority to direct that the

quarrying leases to quarry specified or non-specified minor

mineral in any area belonging to the State Government and

available for grant shall be granted by tender-cum-auction in

accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV-A. Rule-8

underwent an amendment on 16th December 2013 and on 12th

August, 2016. Rule 8, as amended by the aforesaid two

notifications reads thus:

“8. Restrictions on grant or renewal of

quarrying Lease or licence - (1) No quarrying

lease or license shall be granted to any person

other than an Indian Citizen except with the prior

approval of the Central Government.

124

(1-A) No quarry lease/licence/working permission

(amalgamation) shall be granted or renewed –

(i) In contravention of environment impact

assessment notification dated 14.09.2006

issued by the Ministry of Environment and

Forest, Government of India, as amended

from time to time;

(ii) Without approved quarry plan or simplified

quarrying plan; and

(iii) Without obtaining environmental clearance

from concerned authorities.

(2) Quarrying lease may be granted in any forest

land by the State Government with the prior

approval of the Central Government under the

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

(3) No quarrying lease shall be granted in

respect of any land notified by the State

Government as reserved for use by the State or

Central Government, any body or corporation

owned or controlled by the State or Central

Government or for any other public or special

purposes.

(4) No quarrying lease or license or renewal

shall be granted in respect of any minor mineral to

any person if such person has been convicted for

the violations of the provisions of the Act or the

125

Rules made thereunder or if the lease or licenses of

such person has been determined or cancelled

under sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 or Rule 39 or sub-rule

(4) of Rule 44 or Rule 45 of these Rules.

(5) The Competent Authority shall before

granting or renewing a lease, licence, working

permission, consult-

(i) In case of specified minor minerals, the

Deputy Commissioner of the district

concerned and obtain No Objection

Certificate;

(ii) In the case of non-specified minor

minerals, the Tahsildar of the taluk

concerned and obtain No Objection

Certificate;

(iii) In case of all minor minerals, the

Deputy Conservator of Forest of the

concerned Jurisdiction and obtain No

Objection Certificate

(iv) In case of all minor minerals in

Gomal/Gayarana/Hullubani Kharab

etc., type of lands, the Assistant

Commissioner of Revenue Department

and the Deputy Director/Senior

Geologist concerned, who shall furnish

a joint inspection report through Deputy

Commissioner in accordance with

126

Circular No. RD.72.LGP 98, dated

24.02.1999.

(v) In case of all minor minerals,

jurisdictional Mines and Geology

Officer and obtain technical report

along with sketch duly mentioning GPS

Coordinates; and shall take action in

accordance with Chapter-III, in respect

of specified minor minerals and in

accordance with Chapter-IV and V, in

respect of non-specified minor

minerals, as the case may be;

(6) If the Deputy Commissioner or the

Tahsildar or the Deputy Conservator of Forest

or the Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy

Director/Senior Geologist as the case may be,

fails to give No Objection Certificate under Sub-

Rule (5), within ninety days, it shall be deemed

that the Deputy Commissioner or the Tahsildar

or the Deputy Conservator of Forest or the

Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Director

or Senior Geologist, as the case may be, has

given his No Objection and the District Task

Force (Mines) Committee shall communicate

the same to the Competent Authority for

processing such applications for conditional

grant to that effect;

127

Provided that while communicating the

deemed No Objection to the Competent Authority, a

communication shall also be sent to the concerned

Deputy Commissioner or the Tahsildar or the

Deputy Conservator of Forest or the Assistant

Commissioner or the Deputy Director or Senior

Geologist as the case may be that taking into

consideration the deemed no objection the matter

has been further processed.

(7) The grant or renewal of lease/license/working

permissions shall be subject to such other

conditions, if any as specified by the Competent

Authority from time to time.”

(emphasis added) Prior to the amendment made by the notification dated 16th

December 2013, Rule 8 reads thus:

“8. Restrictions on grant or renewal of

quarrying lease or license –(1) No quarrying

lease or licence shall be granted to any person

other than an Indian Citizen except with the prior

approval of the Central Government.


land by the State Government with the prior

approval of the Central Government under the

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

128

(3) No quarrying lease shall be granted in

respect of any land notified by the State

Government as reserved for use by the State or

Central Government, any body or corporation

owned or controlled by the State or Central

Government or for any other public or special

purposes.

(4) No quarrying lease or licence or renewal

shall be granted in respect of any minor mineral to

any person if such person has contravened the

provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder.

(5) The Competent Authority shall before

granting or renewing a lease consult –


Deputy Commissioner of the district

concerned,

(ii) In the case of non-specified minor minerals,

the Tahsildar of the taluk concerned.

(6) The Deputy Commissioner or the Tahsildar,

as the case may be, shall send his

recommendation within ninety days from the date of

receipt of communication from the Competent

Authority.

Provided that if, no recommendation is

received from the Deputy Commissioner or the

129

Tahsildar, as the case may be, within ninety days

from the date of receipt of communication from the

Competent Authority, recommendation for grant or

renewal of a quarrying lease shall be deemed to

have been made by him.”

4. After the Amendment of 16th December 2013, till 12th

August 2016, Rule 8 read thus:

“8. Restrictions on grant or renewal of Quarrying

Lease or licence(1) No quarrying lease or licence

shall be granted to any person other than an Indian

Citizen except with the prior approval of the Central

Government.

(1-A) No quarry lease/licence/working permission

shall be granted or renewed –

(i) in contravention of environment impact

assessment notification dated 14.09.2006

issued by the Ministry of Environment and

Forest, Government of India, as amended

from time to time;

(ii) without approved quarry plan or simplified

quarrying plan; and

(iii) without obtaining environmental clearance

from concerned authorities.

130


land by the State Government with the prior approval

of the Central Government under the Forest

(Conservation) Act 1980.

(3) No quarrying lease shall be granted in respect of

any land notified by the State Government as

reserved for use by the State or Central

Government, any body or corporation owned or

controlled by the State or Central Government or for

any other public or special purposes.

(4) No quarrying lease or licence or renewal shall be

granted in respect of any minor mineral to any

person if such person has contravened the

provisions of the Act or the Rules made their under.

(5) The Competent Authority shall before granting or

renewing a lease, licence, working permission,

consult-


Deputy Commissioner of the District

concerned and obtain No Objection Certificate.

(ii) In the case of non-specified minor minerals,

the Tahasildar of the taluk concerned and

obtain No Objection Certificate.

(iii) In case of all minor minerals, the Deputy

Conservator of Forests of the concerned

jurisdiction and obtain No Objection

Certificate.

131

(iv) in case of all minor minerals in

Gomal/gayarana/hullubani kharab etc. type of

lands, the Assistant Commissioner of Revenue

Department and Deputy Director/Senior

Geologist concerned, who shall furnish a joint

Inspection report through Deputy

Commissioner in accordance with Circular

No.RD 72 LGP 98, dated 24-2-1999.

(v) in case of all minor minerals, jurisdictional

Mines and Geology Officer and obtain

technical report along with sketch duly

mentioning GPS Coordinates; and shall take

action in accordance with Chapter III, in

respect of specified minor mineral and in

accordance with Chapters IV and V, in respect

of non-specified minor minerals as the case

may be.

(6) If the Deputy Commissioner or the Tahsildar, or

the Deputy Conservator of Forest are the Assistant

Commissioner or the Deputy Director/Senior

Geologist as the case may be, fails to give No

Objection Certificate under sub-rule (5), within 90

days the same shall be placed invariably before the

District Task Force (Mines) Committee in its monthly

meetings by the Competent Authority. The opinion

from concerned departmental officers shall be

obtained in the meeting and recorded in the

132

proceedings of the meeting and be disposed off

accordingly.

(7) The grant or renewal of lease/licence/working

permissions shall be subject to such other

conditions, if any as specified by the Competent

Authority from time to time.”

The entire controversy in this group of writ petitions revolves

around the provision of Rule 8-B, as amended by the said

notification, with effect from 12th August 2016. we must note

here that in most of the petitions in this group of writ petitions,

the main challenge is only to the endorsements issued by the

authorities, by which, applications for grant of quarrying lease

made prior to 12th August, 2016 were rejected by relying upon

sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B, as amended with effect from 12th

August, 2016. There are few cases where the applications filed

prior to 12th August, 2016 have been kept pending for

consideration. The challenge is to the constitutional validity of

sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B is in Writ Petition No.38427 of 2018. In

Writ Petition No. 10601 of 2019, though there is no prayer to

that effect, the learned counsel for the petitioner has made

detailed submissions on the issue of constitutional validity.

133

Summary of submissions of the petitioners on constitutional validity

5. The arguments which are canvassed are mainly on two

aspects. Firstly, on the constitutional validity of Rule 8-B and

secondly on the interpretation of Rule 8-B, assuming that it is

valid. In fact, specific challenge to the constitutional validity

of the Rules is in only one or two petitions.

6. On the constitutional validity, the first submission is that

sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B is violative of Article 14 of the

Constitution of India and the same is arbitrary. It was

submitted that two classes of applications for grant of quarrying

leases have been created by the amendment made by the said

Amending Rules. The first class is of all applications which

were made prior to 12th August 2016 but were kept pending

and the second class is of the applications made prior to the

said date and were rejected prior to the said date. It is

submitted that this classification has no rational basis and has

no nexus with the purpose sought to be achieved. It was

submitted that up to 12th August 2016, the auction regime was

not mandatory for grant of quarrying lease/license and it was

made mandatory only with effect from 12th August, 2016.

134

Therefore, there was no reason to make all the applications

pending on 12th August, 2016 as ineligible. It was submitted

that sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B operates retrospectively and takes

away the rights vested in applicants who had made their

applications prior to 12th August, 2016. It was contended that

such applicants have a vested right to get their applications

decided as per the Rules prevailing on the date of filing of the

applications. The applicants belonging to the said category,

who were eligible for grant of mining/quarrying leases on the

dates of making their respective applications, acquired a

vested right of grant of quarrying leases and therefore, their

applications cannot be defeated solely because there was a

delay on the part of the various authorities in granting

clearances or no objection certificates. It was urged that in

any case, a right was vested in the applicants who made

applications prior to 12th August, 2016 to ensure that their

applications are considered in accordance with the law/Rules

prevailing at that time.

7. In support of the argument that Rule 8-B, as amended by

the Amended Rule is invalid, our attention was invited to the

fact that the Rules have been framed in exercise of the power

135

conferred under Section 15 of the said Act of 1957 and the said

Rules are ultra virus the Rule making power conferred on the

State Government under Section 15 of the said Act of 1957. It

was submitted that there was no power vested with the State

Government either under sub-section (1) of Section 15 or any

of the clauses of sub-section 1-A of Section 15 of the said Act

of 1957 to frame the Rules for making the applications filed on

or before a particular date as ineligible. It was urged that the

fixation of cut-off date of 12th August, 2016 is arbitrary which

amounts to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India,

inasmuch as, there is no nexus between the said cut-off date

and the object sought to be achieved by the amended Rules.

It was urged that even after the amendment to the said Act of

1957, it was not mandatory for the State Government to

introduce auction regime for grant of quarrying leases in

respect of the minor minerals. It was contended that the

applicants who applied for grant of quarrying leases prior to

12th August, 2016 acquired a vested right and their applications

will have to be considered in accordance with the Rules

prevailing as on 11th August 2016. It was also urged that sub-

rule (1) of Rule 8-B violates the fundamental right under Article

136

19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India of those who applied

before 12th August 2016 and their applications were kept

pending.

8. Various decisions were relied upon in support of the plea

that the Rule 8-B is constitutionally not valid. We are referring

to the said decisions in the subsequent part of the judgment.

The learned AGA and learned HCGP supported Rule 8-B.

9. Before we refer to the other submissions, we must note

here that in most of the petitions in this group of petitions, the

main challenge is only to the endorsements issued by the

authorities, by which, applications for grant of quarrying lease

made prior to 12th August, 2016 were rejected by relying upon

sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B, as amended with effect from 12th

August, 2016. There are few cases where the applications filed

prior to 12th August, 2016 have been kept pending for

consideration.

Summary of other submissions

10. In those petitions, where there is a no challenge to the

constitutional validity of Rule 8-B, extensive submissions were

137

made which are based on the mandatory requirements needed

to be complied with on the basis of the applications made prior

to 12th August, 2016. Our attention was invited to sub-rules (5)

and (6) of Rule 8, as it stood prior to 12th August, 2016 and

after the amendment dated 16th December, 2013. It was

pointed out that in case of the applications filed from 16th

December, 2013 till 12th August, 2016, the following

requirements were provided in sub-rule (5) of Rule 8 for

consideration of the applications for grant of mining

leases/licenses which were required to be complied with by the

Competent Authority:

(a) in respect of specified minor minerals, the Competent

Authority was required to consult the Deputy

Commissioner of the district concerned and obtain a

no objection certificate;

(b) In case of non-specified minerals, the Competent

Authority was required to obtain no objection

certificate from the Tahsildar of the Taluk concerned;

(c) In case of all minor minerals, the Competent

Authority was required to obtain no objection

certificate of the concerned Deputy Conservator of

Forest;

(d) In case of all minor minerals in Gomal/Gayarana/

Hullubani Kharab etc., types of lands, the

138

Competent Authority was required to consult the

Assistant Commissioner of Revenue Department

and the Deputy Director/Senior Geologist

concerned, who were required to furnish a joint

inspection report through the Deputy

Commissioner in accordance with the Circular

dated 24th February, 1999.

(e) In addition to aforesaid requirements, in case of all

minor minerals, the Competent Authority was

required to consult jurisdictional Mines and

Geology Officer and obtain technical report along

with sketch duly mentioning GPS Coordinates.

(emphasis supplied)

11. The argument is that if for no fault on the part of the

applicants, the Competent Authority failed to obtain aforesaid

no objection certificates and the reports till 12th August 2016,

sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B cannot be applied and the applications

should be processed under the un-amended Rules.

12. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on sub-rule

(6) of Rule 8, as amended by the notification dated 16th

December 2013 which provided that if the Deputy

139

Commissioner or the Tahsildar or the Deputy Conservator of

Forest or the Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy

Director/Senior Geologist, as the case may be, fail to give no

objection certificates under sub-rule (5) within ninety days, by a

deeming fiction, ‘no objection certificates’ shall be deemed to

have been granted.

13. The learned counsel also invited attention of the Court to

sub-rule (5) and (6) of Rule 8, as it existed prior to the

amendment of 16th December, 2013. In the said sub-rule (5),

in case of specified minor minerals, the Competent Authority

was required to consult the Deputy Commissioner of the district

concerned and in case of non-specified minor minerals,the

Competent Authority was required to consult the Tahsildar of

the Taluk concerned. It was also urged that under sub-rule

(6), it was laid down that the Deputy Commissioner or the

Tahsildar, as the case may be, shall send his recommendation

within ninety days from the date of receipt of the

communication from the Competent Authority and the proviso

to sub-rule (6) provided that if no recommendation is received

from the Deputy Commissioner or the Tahsildar, as the case

may be, within ninety days from the date of receipt of the

140

communication from the Competent Authority, the

recommendation for grant or renewal of a quarrying lease shall

be deemed to have been made by the Deputy Commissioner

or the Tahsildar, as the case may be. It was contended that

sub-rules (5) and (6) of Rule 8 will prevail over sub-rule (2) of

Rule 8A.

14. It was urged in some of the petitions that wherever no

objection certificates were already received or were already

deemed to have been received in respect of the applications

which were kept pending as on 12th August, 2016, sub-rule (1)

of Rule 8-B will not apply. Even if no objection certificates were

ready, but were not received by the competent Authority before

12th of August 2016, sub-rule (1) will not apply. The other

contention which is canvassed in several matters is that under

any circumstances, the Competent Authority which is

empowered to decide the applications for grant of mining lease

was under an obligation to consult the concerned authority and

obtain ‘no objections certificates’ from various authorities.

Placing reliance on the several orders passed by the various

division Benches of this Court, it was further contended that it

was the responsibility of the Competent Authority to obtain no

141

objection certificates/reports from various authorities and

should there be a default on the part of the Competent

Authority, the embargo incorporated in sub-rule (1) of

substituted Rule 8-B will not apply. Our attention was invited

to several orders passed by the coordinate Benches of this

Court, taking a similar view. In these cases, the applications

which were pending on 12th August 2016 were ordered to be

considered by giving a direction to the Competent Authority to

obtain no objection certificates. It was urged that this Bench is

bound by the said view taken by the coordinate Benches and

therefore a different view cannot be taken. The learned

counsel have relied upon several other decisions, to which, we

are making a reference in the subsequent part of the judgment.

The learned HCGP and learned AGA urged that sub-rule (1) of

Rule 8-B is mandatory and apart from what is provided in sub-

rule (2), no other exceptions to sub-rule (1) can be carved out.

Their submission is none of the decisions of the coordinate

Benches relied upon by the petitioners are binding precedents.

They have relied upon certain decisions on this aspect. Some

of the petitioners have contended that in case of adjacent or

142

similar lands mining leases have been granted to the

applicants who are similarly placed.

Consideration of submissions on interpretation of Rule 8-B

15. We have given careful consideration to the submissions

made across the Bar. The first issue is about the interpretation

of Rule 8-B of the said Rules. As noted earlier, the said Rules

have been framed in exercise of the rule making power

conferred under Section 15 of the said Act of 1957. By the Act

No.10 of 2015, extensive amendments were made to the said

Act of 2015. It will be necessary to make a reference to the

statements of objects and reasons of the Act No. 10 of 2015.

Clause-3 of the statement of objects and reason refers to the

decision of the Apex Court in the case of Center for public

interest litigations and others –vs- Union of India others1, on

allocation of natural resources, which has a direct relevance to

the grant of mineral concessions. By the said decision, which

is popularly known as 2-G case, the Apex Court introduced

auction as a method for alienating the natural resources.

Clause-4 of the statement of objects and reasons records that

the said Act of 1957 does not permit auctioning of the mineral

1(2012) 3 SCC-1

143

concessions. Clause-4 further records that auction of mineral

concessions would improve transparency in allocation.

Clause-5 of the statement of objects and reasons reads thus:

“5. In view of the urgent need to address these

problems, the Mines and Minerals (Development

and Regulations) Amendment Ordinance, 2015 was

promulgated on 12th January 2015. The present

Bill is to replace this Ordinance. This bill is

designed to put in place mechanism for:

i) Eliminating discretion;

ii) Improving transparency in the allocation of

mineral resources;

iii) Simplifying procedures;

iv) Eliminating delay in administration, so as to

enable expeditious and optimum development of

the mineral resources of the country;

v) Obtaining for the government an enhanced

share of the value of the mineral resources

of the country; and

vi) Attracting private investment and the latest

technology.”

(emphasis added)

Even sub clause (1) of clause-6 is important and reads thus:

“6. The salient features of MMDR Amendment

Bill, 2015 are as follows:

144

(i) Removal of discretion; auction to be sole

method of allotment: The amendment

seeks to bring in utmost transparency by

introducing auction mechanism for the

grant of mineral concessions. The tenure

of mineral lease has been increased from the

existing 30 years to 50 years. There is no

provision for renewal of leases.”

(emphasis added)

16. That is how, by the Act No. 10 of 2015, major

amendments have been carried out to the said Act of 1957.

Section 10-B of the said Act, 1957 provides for grant of mining

lease in respect of notified minerals through auction. Section-

11 introduces provisions for grant of prospecting licence-cum-

mining lease through auction in respect of minerals other than

notified minerals. The said Act No.10 of 2015 came into force

12th January, 2015. As a result of introduction of auction

regime by virtue of Section 10-B and Section 11 of Act of

1957, for dealing with the applications for grant of prospecting

license or mining leases which were pending as on 12th

January, 2015, Section 10A was incorporated in the said Act,

1957 which reads thus:

145

“10-A. Rights of existing concessions holders

and applicants.-(1) All applications received

prior to the date of commencement of the Mines

and Minerals (Development and Regulation)

(Amendment) Act, 2015, shall become ineligible.

(2) Without prejudice to sub-section (1), the

following shall remain eligible on and from the

date of commencement of the Mines and

Minerals (Development and Regulation)

(Amendment) Act, 2015. -

(a) Applications received under Section 11-A of this

Act;

(b) Where before the commencement of the Mines

and Minerals (Development and Regulation)

(Amendment) Act, 2015 a reconnaissance

permit or prospecting licence has been granted

in respect of any land for any mineral, the permit

holder or the licensee shall have a right for

obtaining a prospecting licence followed by a

mining lease, or a mining lease, as the case

may be, in respect of that mineral in that land, if

the State Government is satisfied that the permit

holder or the licensee, as the case may be.-

146

(i) has undertaken reconnaissance operations

or prospecting operations, as the case

may be, to establish the existence of

mineral contents in such land in

accordance with such parameters as may

be prescribed by the Central Government;

(ii) has not committed any breach of the terms

and conditions of the reconnaissance

permit or the prospecting licence;

(iii) has not become ineligible under the

provisions of this Act; and

(iv) has not failed to apply for grant of

prospecting licence or mining lease, as

the case may be, within a period of three

months after the expiry of reconnaissance

permit or prospecting licence, as the case

may be, or within such further period not

exceeding six months as may be

extended by the State Government;

(c) where the Central Government has

communicated previous approval as required

under sub-section (1) of Section 5 for grant of a

mining lease, or if a letter of intent (by whatever

name called) has been issued by the State

Government to grant a mining lease, before the

commencement of the Mines and Minerals

(Development and Regulations) (Amendment

Act, 2015, the mining lease shall be granted

147

subject to fulfilment of the conditions of the

previous approval or of the letter of intent within

a period of two years from the date of

commencement of the said Act:

Provided that in respect of any mineral

specified in the First Schedule, no prospecting

licence or mining lease shall be granted under

clause (b) of this sub-section except with the

previous approval of the Central Government.”

17. Sub-section (1) of Section 10-A provided that all

applications received prior to 12th January, 2015 shall become

ineligible. Sub-section (2) is an exception to sub-section (1) of

Section 10-A which lays down that certain categories of

applications which were filed before 12th January, 2015 can be

considered. One such category of applications is the one

covered by Section 11-A which is applicable to the applications

made for carrying out coal mining operation by a Government

company or corporation or a joint venture company formed by

such company or corporation or between the Central

Government or the State Government, as the case may be, or

any other company incorporated in India. Section 11-A was

brought on the statute book with effect from 21st October 2014,

148

which provided for selection of the companies to carryout coal

mining operation through auction by a competitive bidding.

18. The careful perusal of clauses (b) to (c) of sub-section

(2) of Section 10-A of the said Act of 1957 will show that those

applications filed prior to 12th January 2015 in respect of which

all procedural formalities have been completed such as

communication of previous approval by the Central

Government as required under sub-section (1) of Section 5 or

issuance of letter of intent by the State Government, can be

considered notwithstanding sub-section (1) of section 10-A.

However, in such cases, the mining leases/deeds were

required to be executed and registered within two years from

12th January, 2015.

19. By a letter dated 11th August, 2015 addressed by the

Secretary of the Ministry of Mines, Government of India to the

Chief Secretaries of all State Governments, a direction of the

Central Government under Section 20-A of the said Act of 1957

was communicated to the State Governments. The direction

was that all the State Governments should take necessary

steps to ensure that the process of grant of mining leases is

149

dealt with in a fair and transparent manner. After referring to

the Judgments of the Apex Courts, it was stated in the said

letter that all processes for grant of mining licenses including

mineral concessions of minor minerals should be fair,

reasonable and transparent. Accordingly, the draft of the

Amending Rules was published on 16th June 2015. A Cabinet

note was drawn which refers to the amendment made by the

Act 10 of 2015 to the said Act of 1957 and notes that the

proposed amendments to the said Rules published on 16th

June 2015 were based on the amendment to said Act of 1957

made by the said Act No.10 of 2015. Accordingly, the

amendment to the said Rule was proposed to usher an auction

regime.

20. Hence, with a view to give effect to the Legislative intent

of the Central Legislature reflected from the said Act No.10 of

2015 and in terms of the direction issued under Section 20-A of

the said Act of 1957, extensive amendments were carried out

by the State Government to the said Rules on 12th August,

2016. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B clearly lays down that all the

applications received and pending for grant of lease or license

in respect of minor minerals on the date of commencement of

150

the said Amending Rules were declared to be ineligible. The

said Amending Rules were brought into force with effect from

12th august 2016. Thus, all the applications received and

pending prior to 12th August, 2016 were declared as ineligible.

As pointed out earlier, similar provisions were incorporated by

the said Act 10 of 2015 in the said Act of 1957 in the form of

sub-section (1) of Section 10-A of the said Act of 1957 on the

basis of which 12th August 2016 amendment to the said Rules

was made. However, sub-section (2) of Section 10-A of the

said Act, 1957 carves out an exception to sub-section (1) which

made pending applications as on 12th January 2015 ineligible.

Similarly, sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B carves out an exception to

what is laid down in sub-rule (1). Sub-rule (2) starts with a

non-obstante clause and provides that in the cases covered by

clauses (a) to (d) and (d-1), though the applications are filed

before 12th August, 2016, the same will continue to be eligible.

We must note here that clause (d1) was added not by the said

Amending Rules of 2016, but by the Amending Rules of 16th

November 2017 with retrospective effect from 12th August

2016. Thus, sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B is an exception to the

absolute proposition laid down in sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B that

151

all applications for grant of mining lease received prior to 12th

August, 2016 shall become ineligible. Clause (a) to (d) and (d-

1) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B show that only those applications

were saved from the applicability of the sub-rule (1) where the

procedural formalities like obtaining no objection certificates

were completed prior to 12th August, 2016. Clause (e) of sub-

rule (2) provides that applications covered by clause (a) to (d)

and (d-1) shall be considered as per the provisions of the said

Rules which existed prior to 12th August, 2016. Though some

argument was canvassed by learned HCGP that period of

twenty four months is mandatory, we are not called upon to

decide the said issue in these petitions.

21. Thus, the scheme of sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B is that all

pending applications received and pending for grant of

quarrying lease or license in respect of the minor minerals prior

to 12th August, 2016 shall become ineligible. On its plain

reading, sub-rule (1) will have to be held as mandatory. This

not only because it uses the word shall, but due to one more

circumstance that sub-rule (2) which carves out an exception

to Rule (1) starts with a non-obstante clause. If sub-rule (1)

was not mandatory, there was no reason to provide a non-

152

obstante clause in sub-rule (2) for overriding the sub-rule (1).

The sub-rule (2) which starts with non-obstante clause clearly

carves out an exception to sub-rule (1). Thus, sub-rule (1)

creates a separate class of applications filed prior to 12th

August 2016 which were pending on that day. The said

applications were declared as ineligible. Only those

applications filed before 12th August 2016 which fall in any of

the categories specified in clauses (a) to (d) and (d1) of sub-

rule (2) will be treated as eligible notwithstanding sub-rule (1) of

Rule 8-B. Thus, the intention of the Legislature is clearly to

give effect to the auction regime from 12th August 2016 and

therefore, all the applications pending as on the said cut-off

date were made ineligible. Only those applications in respect

of which the entire process/procedural requirements were

completed on the said date were saved from becoming

ineligible. Thus, such applications which are saved by sub-

rule (2) of Rule 8-B are required to be decided as per the Rules

prevailing immediately prior to 12th August, 2016. Thus, it is

crystal clear that no application for grant of mining lease which

was pending prior to 12th August, 2016 can be considered as

153

eligible, except where the application is covered by sub-rule (2)

of Rule 8-B.

22. As regards the interpretation of 2015 amendments to the

said Act of 1957, the Apex Court, in the case of Bhushan

Power and Steel Limited –vs- S.L. Seal, Additional

Secretary (Steel and Mines), State of Odisha and Others2

held thus:

“19.The Amendment Act, 2015, as is evident from

the objects, aims at: (i) eliminating discretion; (ii)

improving transparency in the allocation of

mineral resources; (iii) simplifying procedures; (iv)

eliminating delay on administration, so as to

enable expeditious and optimum development of

the mineral resources of the country; (v) obtaining

for the Government an enhanced share of the

value of the mineral resources; and (vi) attracting

private investment and the latest technology.

20. The Amendment Act, 2015 ushered in the

amendment of Sections 3, 4, 4-A, 5, 6, 13, 15, 21

and First Schedule; substitution of new sections

for Sections 8, 11 and 13; and, insertion of new

Sections 8-A, 9-B, 9-C, 10-A, 10-C, 11-B, 11-C,

12-A, 15-A, 17-A, 20-A, 30-B, 30-C and Fourth

Schedule.

2(2017) 2 SCC 125

154

21. These amendments brought in vogue: (i)

auction to be the sole method of allotment;(ii)

extension of tenure of existing lease from the date

of their last renewal to 31-3-2030 (in the case of

captive mines) and till 31-3-2020 (for the

merchant miners) or till the completion of renewal

already granted, if any, or a period of 50 years

from the date of grant of such lease; (iii)

establishment of District Mineral Foundation for

safeguarding interest of persons affected by

mining related activities; (iv) setting up of a

National Mineral Exploration Trust created out of

contributions from the mining lease-holders, in

order to have a dedicated fund for encouraging

exploration and investment; (v) removal of the

provisions requiring “previous approval” from the

Central Government for grant of mineral

concessions in case of important minerals like iron

ore, bauxite, manganese, etc. thereby making the

process simpler and quicker; (vi) introduction of

stringent penal provisions to check illegal mining

prescribing higher penalties up to Rs 5 lakhs per

hectare and imprisonment up to 5 years; and (vii)

further empowering the State Government to set

up Special Courts for trial of offences under the

Act.

155

22. Newly inserted provisions of the

Amendment Act, 2015 are to be examined and

interpreted keeping in view the aforesaid

method of allocation of mineral resources

through auctioning, that has been introduced

by the Amendment Act, 2015. Amended

Section 11 now makes it clear that the mining

leases are to be granted by auction. It is for

this reason that sub-section (1) of Section 10-

A mandates that all applications received prior

to 12-1-2015 shall become ineligible.

Notwithstanding, sub-section (2) thereof

carves out exceptions by saving certain

categories of applications even filed before

the Amendment Act,2015 came into operation.

Three kinds of applications are saved:

22.1. First, applications received under Section

11-A of the Act. Section 11-A, under new avatar

is an exception to Section 11 which mandates

grant of prospecting licence combining lease

through auction in respect of minerals, other than

notified minerals. Section 11-A empowers the

Central Government to select certain kinds of

companies mentioned in the said section, through

auction by competitive bidding on such terms and

conditions, as may be prescribed, for the purpose

of granting reconnaissance permit, prospecting

156

licence or mining lease in respect of any area

containing coal or lignite. Unamended provision

was also of similar nature except that the

companies which can be selected now for this

purpose under the new provision are different

from the companies which were mentioned in the

old provision. It is for this reason, if applications

were received even under unamended Section

11-A, they are saved and protected, which means

that these applications can be processed under

Section 11-A of the Act.

22.2. Second category of applications, which are

kept eligible under the new provision, are those

where the reconnaissance, permit or prospecting

licence had been granted and the permit-holder or

the licensee, as the case may be, had undertaken

reconnaissance operations or prospecting

operations. The reason for protecting this class of

applicants, it appears, is that such applicants, with

hope to get the licence, had altered their position

by spending lot of money on reconnaissance

operations or prospecting operations. This

category, therefore, respects the principle of

legitimate expectation.

22.3. Third category is that category of

applicants where the Central Government had

157

already communicated previous approval under

Section 5(1) of the Act for grant of mining lease or

the State Government had issued letter of intent

to grant a mining lease before coming into force of

the Amendment Act, 2015. Here again, the raison

detre is that certain right had accrued to these

applicants inasmuch as all the necessary

procedures and formalities were complied with

under the unamended provisions and only formal

lease deed remained to be executed.

22.4. It would, thus, be seen that in all the

three cases, some kind of right, in law, came

to be vested in these categories of cases

which ledParliament to make such a provision

saving those rights, and understandably so.”

(emphasis added)

23. The provisions of Section 10-A of the said Act of 1957

and provisions of Rule 8-B of the said Rules, to a great extent

are pari materia. Section 10-A was introduced to give effect to

the auction regime on 12th January 2015. The Apex Court

held that all applications made prior to 12th January, 2015,

in view of sub-section (1) of Section 10-A shall become

ineligible and the exception will be only in respect of

three categories of applications which are covered by clause

158

(a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 10-A of the said

Act of 1957. The Amending Rules of 12th August, 2016 were

made in terms of the directions of the Central Government for

giving effect to the auction regime. The Amending Rules

introduced mandatory auction regime (as provided in Chapter

IV-A introduced by the same amendment) and to give effect to

the auction regime, which was introduced from 12th August

2016, by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B, the applications filed before

the said date were made ineligible subject to exceptions carved

out by sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B. Exceptions are only in those

cases where by virtue of the completion of the procedural

requirements, rights were created in favour of the applicants.

24. There is one more decision of the Apex Court in the

case of Muneer Enterprises –vs- Ramgad Minerals and

Mining Limited and Others3 which is relevant. The Apex

Court while dealing with the provisions of the said Act of 1957

(described therein as MMDR Act) in paragraph 76, held thus:

“76. Having considered the respective

submissions on this question, there can be no two

opinions that when the grant, operation and

3 (2015) 5 SCC 366

159

termination of mining lease is governed by the

MMDR Act and the Mineral Concession Rules,

any of those factors viz. either grant of lease,

operation of the mines based on such grant and

the termination of it either by way of surrender

at the instance of the lessee or by way of

termination at the instance of the State should

be carried out strictly in accordance with the

prescribed stipulations of the provisions of the

above Act and the Rules”.

(emphasis added)

Thus, it is apparent that the Apex Court has applied strict rule

of interpretation to the provisions of the said Act of 1957 when

it comes to grant of mining leases or termination of mining

leases by holding that the grant or termination has to be strictly

in accordance with the prescribed stipulations under the

provisions of the said Act of 1957 and the Rules made there

under.

The provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B of the said

Rules must be construed strictly as the same are mandatory.

Unless expressly provided, exceptions to the mandatory rule

cannot be invented or inferred. Otherwise, by carving out

additional exceptions to sub-rule (1) which are not covered

160

either by sub-rule (2) or by any other express Rule, the auction

regime sought to be introduced will be completely defeated.

That will completely defeat the legislative intent and the

directions issued under section 20-A of the said Act of 1957.

25. As noted earlier, under sub-rule (5) of Rule 8, as it

existed prior to 16th December 2013 up to 12th August 2016, it

was the duty of the Competent Authority to obtain no objection

certificates/reports from various authorities. The argument of

the petitioners is that if there is a failure on the part of the

Competent Authority to obtain the said no objection

certificates/reports as on 12th August, 2016 for no fault on the

part of the applicants, the embargo under sub-rule (1) of Rule

8-B will not apply. On plain reading of sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-

B, all the applications received and pending for grant of lease

prior to 12th August 2016 shall become ineligible irrespective of

the status of the applications as on 12th August, 2016, unless

the same fell in one of the categories covered by clauses (a) to

(d) and (d-1) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B. There is nothing in

the said Rules to indicate that apart from what is provided

under sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B, there is any other exception to

sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B. No exception can be created to sub-

161

rule (1) of Rule 8-B, unless such an exception is carved out by

the said Rules itself. Accepting the above contention of the

petitioners will amount to carving out an exception to sub-rule

(1) of Rule 8-B which does not exist in the said Rules. It is not

permissible for the Court to re-write the Rules.

26. Another argument is canvassed that under sub-rule (6)

of Rule 8, as existed up to 16th December 2013, there was a

deeming provision which provided that on the failure of the

Deputy Commissioner or the Tahsildar or the Deputy

Conservator of Forest or the Assistant Commissioner or the

Deputy Director/Senior Geologist, as the case may be, to send

recommendation within ninety days from the date of receipt of

communication from the Competent Authority, it shall be

deemed that no objection certificate has been granted.

There is a similar deeming provision in sub-rule (6) of rule 8 as

amended from 16th December, 2013. If no objection

certificates/reports referred in clauses (b), (c), (d) and (d-1) of

sub-rule (2) are deemed to have been granted prior to 12th

August, 2016 in terms of a specific deeming provisions in the

said Rules , then sub-rule (2) of rule 8-B will apply. But in

absence of a specific deeming provision, clauses (a) to (d) and

162

(d-1) of sub-rule (2) will not apply only because there is a

failure on the part of the Competent Authority to obtain no

objection certificates. Such failure cannot affect the operation

of the mandatory provision of sub-rule (1) Rule 8-B. Merely

because in some other cases, leases were granted contrary to

sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B, the petitioners cannot claim any right.

The issue whether the view taken above is contrary to

binding precedents of coordinate Benches is discussed

separately.

Issue of constitutional validity

27. Now we turn to the issue of constitutional validity of Rule

8-B(1). As far as the scope of judicial review of any legislation

is concerned, it is well settled that a statute can be

invalididated only on the following grounds:

(a) If it is not within the competence of the Legislature

which passed the law;

(b) If it is in contravention of any of the fundamental

rights or any other constitutional provisions;

(c) If it is manifestly arbitrary.

In case of a subordinate legislation, another ground is available

that the subordinate legislation is ultra virus the parent

legislation. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh –vs-

163

Rakesh Kohli and another4, the Apex Court while dealing with

the constitutional validity of a provision regarding stamp duty

payable on a power of attorney, dealt with the scope of

interference with a legislation and held thus:

“16. The statute enacted by Parliament or a

State Legislature cannot be declared

unconstitutional lightly. The Court must be

able to hold beyond any iota of doubt that the

violation of the constitutional provisions was

so glaring that the legislative provision under

challenge cannot stand. Sans flagrant violation

of the constitutional provisions, the law made by

Parliament or a State Legislature is not declared

bad.”

(emphasis added)

In the case of Mohd. Hanif Quareshi and others –v-s State

of Bihar and others5, the Apex Court observed thus:

“(15) The meaning, scope and effect of Art.14,

which is the equal protection clause in our

Constitution, has been explained by this Court in a

series of decisions in cases beginning with

Charanjitlal Chowdhury v. Union of India, 1950 S C

R 869: (AIR 1951 SC 41) (c) and ending with the

recent case of Ramkrishna Dalmia v. Justice

4(2012) 6 SCC 312 5AIR 1958 SC 731

164

Tendolkar, C A Nos.455 to 457 and 656 to 658 of

1957 D/- 28-3-1958: (AIR 1958 SC 538) (D). It is

now well established that while Art. 14 forbids class

legislation it does not forbid reasonable

classification for the purposes of legislation and that

in order to pass the test of permissible classification

two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i) the

classification must be founded on an intelligible

differentia which distinguishes persons or things

that are grouped together from others left out of the

group and (ii) such differentia must have a rational

relation to the object sought to be achieved by the

statute in question. The classification, it has been

held, may be founded on different bases, namely,

geographical, or according to objects or

occupations or the like and what is necessary is

that there must be a nexus between the basis of

classification and the object of the Act under

consideration. The pronouncements of this

Court further establish, amongst other things,

that there is always a presumption in favour of

the constitutionality of an enactment and that

the burden is upon him, who attacks it, to show

that there has been a clear violation of the

constitutional principles. The Courts, it is

accepted, must presume that the Legislature

understands and correctly appreciates the

needs of its own people, that its laws are

165

directed to problems made manifest by

experience and that its discriminations are

based on adequate grounds. It must be borne

in mind that the Legislature is free to recognize

degrees of harm and may confine its

restrictions to those cases where the need is

deemed to be the clearest and finally that in

order to sustain the presumption of

constitutionality the Court may take into

consideration matters of common knowledge,

matters of common report, the history of the

times and may assume every state of facts

which can be conceived existing at the time of

legislation. We, therefore, proceed to examine the

impugned Acts in the light of the principles thus

enunciated by this Court.”

(emphasis added)

In the case of Hamdard Dawkhana and another –vs- The

Union of India6 the Apex Court held thus:

(8) Therefore when the constitutionality of an

enactment is challenged on the ground of violation

of any of the articles in Part III of the Constitution,

the ascertainment of its true nature and

character becomes necessary i.e. its subject

matter, the area in which it is intended to

6 AIR 1960 SC 554

166

operate, its purport and intent have to be

determined. In order to do so it is legitimate to

take into consideration all the factors such as

history of the legislation, the purpose thereof,

the surrounding circumstances and conditions,

the mischief which it intended to suppress, the

remedy for the disease which the legislature

resolved to cure and the true reason for the

remedy; Bengal Immunity co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar,

1955-2 SCR 603 at pp. 632, 633: 9 (S) AIR 1955

SC 661 at p.674); R. M. D. Chamarbaughwala v.

Union of India, 1957 SCR 930 at p.936: ( (S) AIR

1957 SC 628 at p. 631); Mahant Moti Das v. S.P.

Sahi, AIR 1959 SC 942 at p.948.”

(emphasis added)

28. Thus, there is a well settled proposition that a

presumption is always there in favour of the constitutionality of

a legislation. The challenge to a legislation cannot be casually

dealt with. Moreover, while examining the challenge, the Court

must ascertain the true nature, the area in which it is intended

to operate, its purport and intent. In order to do so, it is

legitimate to take into consideration all the factors such as

history of the legislation, the purpose thereof, the surrounding

circumstances and conditions, the mischief which it intended to

167

suppress, the remedy for the disease which the legislature

resolved to cure and the true reason for the remedy. Therefore,

the amendment to the parent statute (the said Act of 1957) and

the legislative intent to introduce the auction regime for getting

rid of arbitrariness in the matter of grant of mining leases has to

be considered in the present case. The exercise of the

amendment was undertaken to make the procedure of

allotments fair and transparent. The Rule 8-B was introduced

by the State to give effect to the legislative intent of the Central

legislature.

29. Sub-section (1) of Section 20-A of the said Act of 1957

reads thus:

20-A. Power of Central Government to

issue directions – (1) Notwithstanding anything

contained in this Act, the Central Government may

issue such directions to the State Governments, as

may be required for the conservation of mineral

resources, or on any policy matter in the national

interest, and for the scientific and sustainable

development and exploitation of mineral resources.

168

By a letter dated 17th August 2015, the Secretary of the Ministry

of Mines conveyed the decision under Section 20-A to the state

Government. The said letter reads thus:

“Balvinder Kumar, IAS Government of India Secretary Ministry of Mines Shastri Bhavan Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road New Delhi-110 001 F.No.16/119/2015-M-VI 17th August, 2015 Dear Sir, As you are aware, the Central Government has

amended the Mines and Minerals (Development &

Regulation) Act, 2015, with effect from 12.02.2015.

2. The most important change that has been

introduced by the Amendment Act is that mineral

concessions henceforth can only be granted

through auction. This step has been taken in

order to ensure that the process of grant of

mineral concessions conforms to the principles

laid down in several judgments of the Supreme

Court, notably the following:

1. Judgment dated 02/02/2012 in WP(Civil)

423/2010 and WP(Civil) 10/2011

(commonly known as 2G Judgment).

2. Supreme Court’s opinion dated

27/09/2012 on President of India

reference dated 12/04/2012.

3. Judgment dated 25/08/2014 in a

WP(Crl.) No.120/2012 in the matter of

169

Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. The Principal

Secretary & Ors. (Allocation of coal

blocks Judgment).

3. Relevant extracts of the judgment in these

cases are enclosed. The principles laid down in

these judgments are that all the processes must

be fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory,

transparent, non-capricious and non-biased. It

should not be tainted by either favouritism or

nepotism and should promote healthy

competition and equal treatment amongst

applicants.

4. Section 15 of the MMDR Act empowers the

State Governments to make Rules for the grant of

mineral concessions for minor minerals. The

principles laid down by the Supreme Court by the

Judgments cited above would apply equally to

mineral concessions in respect of minor

minerals.

5. This issue was discussed in the meeting of

Central Coordination-cum-Empowered Committee

(CCEC) of the Ministry of Mines held on 04.08.2015.

It was noted that many States have already taken

steps in the direction of instituting transparent and

non-discriminatory process for grant of mineral

concession. Further, some of the States

observed that they had achieved encouraging

results after introduction auction mode for

170

granting mining leases. States were also of the

view that mining plans are now to be

compulsorily prepared for all minor minerals

since an approved mining plan is a pre-requisite

for grant of environmental clearance which has

again been made compulsory for all leases

irrespective of size. Under the circumstances, it

is felt necessary that the States must discontinue

arbitrary and discriminatory process of granting

mineral leases, wherever applicable and adopt

procedures keeping in mind the directions given

by the Supreme Court.

6. The Central Government, in view of the above,

in exercise of its power under Section 20A of the

MMDR Act, 1957 directs that the State

Government should take necessary steps to

ensure that the complete process relating to

grant of mineral concessions of minor minerals,

is made fair, transparent and non-discriminatory.

It is, therefore, requested that your government

should review/revisit the mechanism/procedure

relating to grant of concessions/leases of minor

minerals expeditiously and take steps to ensure

compliance of the principles laid down by the

Supreme Court.

With warm regards, Yours sincerely, Sd/- Balvinder Kumar Shri. Kaushik Mukherjee, IAS

171

Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Secretariat, 3rd Floor, R. No.320, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru-560 001. Encl: The gist is felt desirable of 3 Supreme Court’s Judgments as above”.

(emphasis added)

The amendment to the said Rules made on 12th August 2016 is

to give effect to the above direction.

30. We have already observed that in the case in hand, the

power exercised for framing the Rules is under Section 15 of

the said Act of 1957 which reads thus:

“15. Power of State Governments to make rules

in respect of minor minerals.―(1) The State

Government may, by notification in the Official

Gazette, make rules for regulating the grant of

[quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral

concessions] in respect of minor minerals and

for purposes connected therewith.

[(1A) In particular and without prejudice to the

generality of the foregoing power, such rules may

provide for all or any of the following matters,

namely:―

(a) the person by whom and the manner in

which, applications for quarry leases, mining leases

172

or other mineral concessions may be made and the

fees to be paid there for;

(b) the time within which, and the form in which,

acknowledgement of the receipt of any such applications

may be sent;

(c) the matters which may be considered where

applications in respect of the same land are received

within the same day;

(d) the terms on which, and the conditions subject

to which and the authority by which quarry leases,

mining leases or other mineral concessions may be

granted or renewed;

(e) the procedure for obtaining quarry leases,

mining leases or other mineral concessions;

(f) the facilities to be afforded by holders of quarry

leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions to

persons deputed by the Government for the purpose of

undertaking research or training in matters relating to

mining operations;

173

(g) the fixing and collection of rent, royalty, fees, dead

rent, fines or other charges and the time within which and

the manner in which these shall be payable;

(h) the manner in which rights of third parties may be

protected (whether by way of payment of compensation or

otherwise) in cases where any such party is prejudicially

affected by reason of any prospecting or mining

operations;

(i) the manner in which rehabilitation of flora and other

vegetation such as trees, shrubs and the like destroyed

by reason of any quarrying or mining operations shall be

made in the same area or in any other area selected by

the State Government (whether by way of reimbursement

of the cost of rehabilitation or otherwise) by the person

holding the quarrying or mining lease;

(j) the manner in which and the conditions subject to

which, a quarry lease, mining lease or other mineral

concession may be transferred;

(k) the construction, maintenance and use of roads

power transmission lines, tramways, railways, serial rope

ways, pipelines and the making of passage for water for

mining purposes on any land comprised in a quarry or

mining lease or other mineral concession;

174

(l) the form of registers to be maintained under this

Act;

(m) the reports and statements to be submitted by

holders of quarry or mining leases or other mineral

concessions and the authority to which such reports and

statements shall be submitted;

(n) the period within which and the manner in which

and the authority to which applications for revision of any

order passed by any authority under these rules may be

made, the fees to be paid therefore, and the powers of the

revisional authority; and

(o) any other matter which is to be, or may be,

prescribed.]

(2) Until rules are made under sub-section (1),

any rules made by a state Government regulating

the grant of [quarry leases, mining leases or other

mineral concessions] in respect of minor minerals

which are in force immediately before the

commencement of this Act shall continue in force.

[(3) The holder of a mining lease or any other

mineral concession granted under any rule made

under sub-section (1) shall pay [royalty or dead rent

whichever is more] in respect of minor minerals

removed or consumed by him or by his agent,

175

manager, employee, contractor or sub-lessee at the

rate prescribed for the time being in the rules

framed by the State Government in respect of

minor minerals:

Provided that the State Government shall not

enhance the rate of [royalty or dead rent] in respect

of any minor mineral for more than once during any

period of [three] years.]

[(4. Without prejudice to sub-section (1), (2) and

(3) the State Government may, by notification,

make rules for regulating the provisions of this Act

for the following, namely:-

(a) the manner in which the District Minerals

Foundation shall work for the interest and

benefit of persons and areas affected by

mining under sub-section (2) of Section 9-B;

(b) the composition and functions of the District

Minerals Foundation under sub-section (3) of

Section 9-B; and

(c) the amount of payment to be made to the

District Minerals Foundation by concession

holders of Miner Minerals under Section 15-

A.]”

(emphasis added)

176

From plain reading of sub-section (1) of Section 15, it is

apparent that generally, the rule making power has been

conferred on the State Government to make Rules for

regulating the grant of quarry leases, mining leases or other

mineral concessions in respect of the Minor Minerals and for all

other purposes connected therewith. A perusal of the said

Act of 1957 will show that in clause (e) of Section 3, the ‘minor

minerals’ have been defined. Under Section 10, it is provided

that applications for prospecting licences or mining leases in

respect of any land in which the minerals vest in the State

Government shall be made to the State Government. Sub-

section (3) of Section 10 provided that on receipt of an

application, the State Government may, having regard to the

provisions of the said Act of 1957 and the Rules made therein,

can grant or refuse to grant permit/license or lease. Section

10-B deals with grant of mining lease in respect of notified

minerals as defined in clause (ea) of Section 3. Section 11

deals with grant of prospecting licence-cum-mining lease by

the State Government through auction in respect of minerals

other than notified minerals.

177

31. Sub-section (1) of Section 15 confers a specific rule

making power on the State Government to regulate grant of

quarry leases, whereunder a general rule making power has

been conferred. Sub-section (1-A) provides that without

prejudice to the generality of the power conferred under sub-

section (1), Rules could be framed on the list of matters set out

therein. Clause (a) to (n) of sub-section (1-A) will show that

the rule making power is conferred about various aspects of

the applications for grant of mining lease and consideration

thereof. Therefore, it is permissible to frame the Rules which

provide for regulating grant of mining leases. It is permissible

to provide by framing Rules that from a particular date, the

grant of mining lease will be only by an auction. Hence, the

Amending Rules made on 12th August 2016 are well within the

Rule making power.

32. We have also carefully considered the objects and

reasons of the Act of No.10 of 2015 by which the auction

regime was introduced in the said Act of 1957. The statement

of the objects and reasons records that with the object of

eliminating the discretion and improving transparency in the

allocation of mineral resources and for simplifying the

178

procedures, auction regime was introduced in the said Act of

1957. In fact, the objects and reasons refer to a Judgment of

the Apex Court relating to allocation of natural resources. The

reference appears to be to a decision of the Apex Court in the

case of Natural Resources Allocation, in Re Special

Reference No.1 of 20127. Paragraphs 190 and 200 of the

said decision are material which reads thus:

“190. Before adverting to anything else, it is

essential to refer to Article 39(b) of the Constitution

of India:

“39” Certain principles of policy to be followed

by the State – The State shall in particular, direct its

policy towards securing –

(a) ***

(b) that the ownership and control of the material resources of

the community are so distributed as best to subserve the

common good”.

The Mandate contained in the Article extracted

above envisages that all material resources ought to

be distributed in a manner which would “best to

subserve the common good”. It is therefore,

apparent that governmental policy for distribution of

such resources should be devised by keeping in

mind the “common good” of the community i.e. the

7 (2012) 10 SCC 1

179

citizens of this country. It has been expressed in

the main opinion, that matters of policy fall within the

realm of the legislature or the executive, and cannot

be interfered with, unless the policy is in violation of

statutory law, or is ultra vires the provision(s) of the

Constitution of India. It is not within the scope of

judicial review for a court to suggest an alternative

policy, which in the wisdom of the court could be

better suited in the circumstances of a case. Thus

far, the position is clearly unambiguous.”

“200. I would, therefore, conclude by stating

that no part of the natural resource can be

dissipated as a matter of largesse, charity, donation

or endowment, for private exploitation. Each bit of

natural resource expended must bring back a

reciprocal consideration. The consideration may be

in the nature of earning revenue or may be to “best

subserve the common good”. It may well be the

amalgam of the two. There cannot be a dissipation

of material resources free of cost or at a

consideration lower than their actual worth. One

set of citizens cannot prosper at the cost of another

set of citizens, for that would not be fair or

reasonable.”

Auction regime was introduced to the said Rules for grant of

mining lease in respect of notified minerals as well as for non-

180

notified minerals, which is consistent with the intention of the

Central legislature, as reflected by the amendment carried out

by the Act No.10 of 2015 to the said Act of 1957. By the said

Amendming Rules of 12th August 2016, auction regime was

introduced in the said Rules. That is how, Rule 8-B was

brought on the rule book which is substantially similar to the

section 10-A of the said Act of 1957.

33. Thus, when an auction regime was introduced from a

particular date, it follows that the applications which are

pending for consideration on that date cannot be considered as

per the old regime. However, as observed earlier, though all

the applications pending on 12th August, 2016 were made

ineligible by virtue of sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B, by virtue of sub-

rule (2) of Rule 8-B, few exceptions were carved out. After

introduction of auction regime in the parent Act, the auction

regime has to be introduced in the said Rules, with a view to

give effect to the intention of the legislature. It follows that the

auction regime has to be strictly applied from a particular date.

Accordingly, the auction regime came into force on 12th August,

2016 under the said Rules. The public auction ensures that

ownership and control of minerals vesting in the State is

181

distributed as best to subserve common good. That is in

consonance with clause (b) of Article 39 forming a part of

Directive Principles of the State policy. While introducing

transparent and fair procedure for distribution of State largesse,

interests of few individuals is bound to be affected for taking

care of the larger public interests.

34. Another argument was canvassed that once an

application is made for grant of mining lease, a right is vested

in the applicant to get the mining lease. Under section 67 of

the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short “the said Act

of 1964”), all public roads, streets, lanes and paths, bridges,

ditches, dikes and fences, on or beside the same, the bed of

the sea and of harbours and creeks below high water mark and

of rivers, streams, nallas, lakes and tanks and all canals and

water courses and all standing and flowing waters, and all

lands wherever situated which are not the property of

individuals or of aggregate of persons legally capable of

holding property vest in the State Government, unless the

contrary is proved. The land as defined in clause (14) of

section 2 of the said Act of 1964 includes minor minerals.

There cannot be a vested right in any individuals to acquire a

182

property vested in the State Government. The property of the

State must be disposed of only by following a fair and

transparent procedure. That is the well settled law.

35. On this aspect, it will be worthwhile to consider the

decision of the Apex Court in the case of Howrah Municipal

Corporation and another –vs- Ganges Rope Company

Limited and others8. The Apex Court considered the

question whether by merely making an application for grant of

construction permission, any vested right is created in the

applicant. The Apex Court held thus:

“18. To decide on the justification of the claim

raised on behalf of the company that the order of

the Court fixing a time limit for the Corporation to

decide its application for sanction creates a vested

right, it would be necessary to examine the relevant

provisions of the Act, Rules and the Regulations.

Chapter XII of the Act contains provisions

regulating sanction for construction or erection of

buildings in the area within the limits of the

Corporation. Section 173 states:

“173. No person shall use any piece of land as a

site for erection of a new building except in

accordance with the provisions of this Act and of 8(2004) 1 SCC 663

183

the rules and the regulations made under this Act in

relation to such erection of building."

Section 174 requires:

“174. Every person who intends to erect a building

shall apply for sanction by giving notice in writing of

his intention to the Commissioner in such form and

containing such information or document as may be

prescribed.

" Section 175 reads:

"175. The Commissioner shall sanction the erection

of building ordinarily within a period of sixty days

unless any further information or document be

called for or sanction be refused in the meantime

on such grounds as may be prescribed."

19. What is to be noted from Section 175 (quoted

above) is that a period of sixty days is not a firm

outer limit as the words "sixty days" are prefixed by

the word "ordinarily." It is also to be noted that the

provisions of the Act under consideration,

compared with other Corporation Acts of other

States, do not provide for “deemed sanction” or

“deemed rejection” after expiry of the prescribed

period fixed for deciding the application for

sanction.

30. This Court, thus, has taken a view that the

Building Rules or Regulations prevailing at the

time of sanction would govern the subject of

184

sanction and not the Rules and Regulations

existing on the date of application for sanction.

This Court has envisaged a reverse situation that if

subsequent to the making of the application for

sanction, the Building Rules, on the date of

sanction, have been amended more favourably in

favour of the person or party seeking sanction,

would it then be possible for the Corporation to say

that because the more favourable Rules containing

conditions came into force subsequent to the

submission of application for sanction, it would not

be available to the person or party applying.

36. The above stated legal position is not disputed

on behalf of the respondent company. What is

being contended is that the order of the High Court

fixing a period for the Corporation to decide its

pending application for sanction creates a vested

right in favour of the applicant company to seek

sanction for its additional proposed construction on

the basis of the Building Rules, as they stood prior

to the amendment introduced to the Building Rules

and the consequent Resolution of the Corporation

restricting the height of buildings on G.T. Road. It

is undeniable that after the amendment of the

Building Rules and the Resolution passed by the

Corporation there under, restrictions imposed on

heights of buildings on specified wards, roads and

localities would apply to all pending applications for

185

sanction. The question is whether any exception

can be made to the case of the applicant seeking

sanction who had approached the court and

obtained consideration of its applications for

sanction within a specified period. We have

extracted above, the various orders passed by the

High Court in writ petitions successively filed by the

company in an effort to obtain early sanction for its

additional construction of three floors on the

buildings in its multi-storeyed complex already

completed up to 4th floor. In none of the orders of

the High Court, there is a mandate issued to the

Corporation to grant a sanction. What was directed

by the High Court in the first order was merely a

“liberty” or option to the company to seek sanction

for additional three floors. In the subsequent order,

an “expectation” was expressed for decision of the

pending applications within a period of four weeks.

There was, thus, in favour of the company an

order of the High Court directing the

Corporation to decide its pending applications

for sanction within the allotted period but non-

compliance therewith by the Corporation can

not result in creation of any vested right in

favour of the company to obtain sanction on the

basis of the Building Rules as they stood on the

date of making application for sanction and

regardless of the amendment introduced to the

186

Building Rules. Neither the provisions of the

Act nor general law creates any vested right, as

claimed by the applicant company for grant of

sanction or for consideration of its application

for grant of sanction on the then existing

Building Rules as were applicable on the date of

application. Conceding or accepting such a so-

called vested right of seeking sanction on the

basis of the unamended Building Rules, as in

force on the date of application for sanction,

would militate against the very scheme of the

Act contained in Chapter XII and the Building

Rules which intend to regulate the building

activities in a local area for general public

interest and convenience. It may be that the

Corporation did not adhere to the time limit fixed by

the court for deciding the pending applications of

the company but we have no manner of doubt that

the Building Rules with prohibition or restrictions on

construction activities as applicable on the date of

grant or refusal of sanction would govern the

subject matter and not the Building Rules as they

existed on the date of application for sanction. No

discrimination can be made between a party which

had approached the court for consideration of its

application for sanction and obtained orders for

decision of its application within a specified time

and other applicants whose applications are

187

pending without any intervention or order of the

court.

37. The argument advanced on the basis of so-

called creation of vested right for obtaining

sanction on the basis of the Building Rules

(unamended) as they were on the date of

submission of the application and the order of

the High Court fixing a period for decision of

the same, is misconceived. The word ”vest” is

normally used where an immediate fixed right in

present or future enjoyment in respect of a

property is created. With the long usage the

said word “vest” has also acquired a meaning

as "an absolute or indefeasible right" [See K.J.

Aiyer's 'Judicial Dictionary' (A complete Law

Lexicon), Thirteenth Edition]. The context in

which the respondent - company claims a vested

right for sanction and which has been accepted by

the Division Bench of the High Court, is not a right

in relation to “ownership or possession of any

property” for which the expression “vest” is

generally used. What we can understand from

the claim of a “vested right” set up by the

respondent-company is that on the basis of the

Building Rules, as applicable to their case on

the date of making an application for sanction

and the fixed period allotted by the court for its

consideration, it had a “legitimate” or “settled

188

expectation” to obtain the sanction. In our

considered opinion, such “settled expectation”,

if any, did not create any vested right to obtain

sanction. True it is, that the respondent-company

which can have no control over the manner of

processing of application for sanction by the

Corporation cannot be blamed for delay but during

pendency of its application for sanction, if the State

Government, in exercise of its rule making power,

amended the Building Rules and imposed

restrictions on the heights of buildings on G.T.

Road and other wards, such “settled expectation”

has been rendered impossible of fulfilment due to

change in law. The claim based on the alleged

“vested right” or “settled expectation” cannot

be set up against statutory provisions which

were brought into force by the State

Government by amending the Building Rules

and not by the Corporation against whom such

“vested right” or “settled expectation” is being

sought to be enforced. The “vested right” or

“settled expectation” has been nullified not only

by the Corporation but also by the State by

amending the Building Rules. Besides this,

such a “settled expectation” or so-called

“vested right” cannot be countenanced against

public interest and convenience which are

sought to be served by amendment of the

189

Building Rules and the resolution of the

Corporation issued thereupon.”

(emphasis added)

36. In the above case, the Apex Court observed that so-

called vested rights cannot be countenanced against public

interest and convenience. Moreover, in the cases in hand, the

amendment is made for introduction of a transparent and fair

method of auction which is in public interest. Therefore, there

is nothing like a vested right to get sanction for grant of quarry

lease. By no stretch of imagination, any right is vested in the

petitioners by making an application for grant of mining lease.

By merely making an application for grant of mining lease, no

legitimate expectation is created or no vested right is created.

Therefore, the argument that the vested right is taken away by

sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B deserves to be rejected.

37. Right to carry on business which is a fundamental right is

always subject to reasonable restrictions. The fundamental

right conferred by clause (g) of clause (1) of Article 19 of the

Constitution of India is subject to reasonable restrictions in

public interest, as provided in clause (6) of Article 19 of the

Constitution. In the cases in hand, auction as a mode of grant

190

of mining lease is introduced in public interest which ensures

that the property vested in the State is disposed of in a fair and

transparent manner/method of a public auction. This ensures

that the best possible price is fetched for the minor minerals

which would ultimately benefit the State exchequer. Moreover,

Rule 8-B does not prevent any person from applying for grant

of mining lease, but he will have to compete with others by

participating in public auction. Hence, there is no violation of

the rights conferred under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution

as the restrictions, if any, are in public interest.

38. We must now deal with the argument of violation of

Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The impugned

amendment, introducing auction regime in the said Rules is

consistent with the amendment carried out to the parent Act by

the Act No.10 of 2015. Therefore, from some day, by ending

the earlier regime, the auction regime had to be introduced in

the said Rules which was done with effect from 12th August,

2016. The said Amending Rules came into force on 12th

August 2016. Therefore, that was the cut-off date chosen.

There is nothing arbitrary or irrational in the same.

191

39. There is one more aspect of the matter which requires to

be noted. Even in the absence of Rule 8-B, the applications

which were pending on 12th August, 2016 could not have been

saved inasmuch as the Rules which prevail on the date of

consideration of the applications would apply. But by

introducing sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B, in case of those

applications, on the basis of which all the mandatory

procedural formalities were completed prior to 12th August,

2016 and only an order of execution of lease remained to be

passed, an exception was carved out to sub-rule (1) of rule 8-

B. Those applications which are covered by sub-rule (2) can

be decided on the basis of the rules applicable prior to 12th

August, 2016. Therefore, there is no merit in the challenge to

the validity of Rule 8-B. The amendment is well within the

scope of the rule making power under section 15 of the said

Act of 1957. Rule 8-B does not infringe any provision of the

Constitution.

Decisions relied upon by the parties: 40. Now, we turn to the decisions relied upon by the parties.

192

(i) In the case of Directorate of Enforcement –vs-

Deepak Mahajan and another9 it was held that the provisions

of subsidiary rules should be construed so as further the ends

of justice and not to frustrate the same. The Court cannot

resort to judicial legislation but it can mould and creatively

interpret the provisions to remove the difficulties in the

implementation of the legislative intent. This decision relies

upon the decision of the House of Lords, in the case of

Attorney General –vs- H.R.H. Prince Ernest Augustus of

Hanover 1957 (1) ALL.E.R.49.

(ii) In the case of Poppatlal Shah –vs- the State of

Madras10 the Apex Court held thus:

(7) It is a settled rule of construction that to

ascertain the legislative intent, all the constituent

parts of a statute are to be taken together and each

word, phrase or sentence is to be considered in the

light of the general purpose and object of the Act

itself. The title of the Madras Sales Tax Act

describes it to be an Act, the object of which is to

provide for the levy of a general tax on the sale of

goods in the Province of Madras and the very same

words are repeated in the preamble which follows.

The title and preamble, whatever their value might 9 (1994) 3 SCC 440

10AIR 1953 SC 274

193

be as aids to the construction of a statute,

undoubtedly throw light on the intent and design of

the Legislature and indicate the scope and purpose

of the legislation itself. The title and preamble of

the Madras Sales Tax Act clearly show that its

object is to impose taxes on sales that take place

within the province, though these words do not

necessarily mean that the property in the goods

sold must pass within the province. The expression

“sale of goods” is a composite expression

consisting of various ingredients or elements.

Thus, there are the elements of a bargain or

contract of sale, the payment or promise of

payment of price, the delivery of goods and the

actual passing of title, and each one of them is

essential to a transaction of sale through the sale is

not completed or concluded unless the purchaser

becomes the owner of the property. The question

is what element or elements have been accepted

by the Madras Legislature as constituting a sale in

the province upon which it is the object of the

statute to levy tax. Section 2 (h) gives the definition

of ‘sale’ and it is defined as meaning,

“every transfer of the property in goods by one

person to another in the course of trade or

business for cach or for deferred payment or

other valuable consideration, but does not

194

include a mortgage, hypothecation, charge or

pledge.”

We have followed the principles laid down above while

interpreting Rule 8-B.

(iii) Reliance was also placed on the decision of the

Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court rendered in the case of

Bharath Aluminum Company–vs- Kaiser Aluminum

Technical Services INC11.

(iv) The decision of the Apex Court in the case of

Kusheshwar Prasad Singh –vs- State of Bihar12 was also

relied upon.

(v) The decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jose

Da Costa and another –vs- Bascora Sadasiva Sinai

Narcornim and others13, wherein the Apex Court dealt with

the issue of interpretation of retrospective statutes and held

thus:

“31. Before ascertaining the effect of the

enactments aforesaid passed by the Central

Legislature on pending suits or appeals, it would be

appropriate to bear in mind two well-established

principles. The first is that while provision of a 11

(2012) 9 Supreme Court Cases 552 12

(2007) 11 SCC 447 13

(1976) 2 SCC 917

195

statute dealing merely with matters of procedure

may properly unless that construction be textually

inadmissible, have retrospective effect attributed to

them, provisions which touch a right in existence at

the passing of the statute are not applied

retrospectively in the absence of express

enactment or necessary intendment.

The second is that a right of appeal being a

substantive right the institution of a suit carried with

it the implication that all successive appeals

available under the law then in force would be

preserved to the parties to the suit throughout the

rest of the career of the suit. There are two

exceptions to the application of this rule, viz. (1)

when by competent enactment such right of appeal

is taken away expressly or impliedly with

retrospective effect and (2) when the court to which

appeal lay at the commencement of the suit stands

abolished”.

This decision has no bearing for more than one reason.

Firstly, the said Rules do not deal with mere procedure. The

Rules regulate grant of mining lease/licence. Secondly, even

in the parent Act, namely the said Act of 1957 similar

amendments were made, making the pending applications

ineligible, subject to the exceptions provided in sub-section (2).

196

(vi) Another judgment relied upon is in the case of The

Income Tax Officer, Alleppey –vs- M.C. Ponnoose and

others.14 The issue was whether a delegated authority can

make delegated legislation having retrospective effect. The

Apex Court held that whether the delegated authority can make

retrospective legislation or not depends on the language

employed in the statutory provision which may in express terms

or by necessary implication empower the necessary authority

concerned to make a rules or regulations with retrospective

effect.

In the present case, Section15 of the said Act of 1957

confers power to frame the Rules for regulating grant and

renewal of mining leases for minor minerals. Therefore, it can

be said that by necessary implication, the State Government

has been authorized to make the Rules having retrospective

operation.

(vii) Another decision relied upon is in the case of

Union of India and others –vs- Tushar Ranjan Mohanty and

others,15 wherein a rule was struck down to the extent to

which it was made operative retrospectively. It was struck

14AIR 1970 SC 385 15

(1994) 5 SCC 450

197

down on the ground the retrospective operation of law could

not deprive a person an accrued right vested in him under a

statute or under constitution.

(viii) Another decision relied upon is in the case of

Amireddy Raja Gopala Rao and others –vs- Amireddi

Sitharamamma and others.16 The Apex Court held that a

statute has to be interpreted, if possible, so as to respect

vested rights, and if the words are open to another

construction, such a construction should never be adopted.

These two decisions have been relied on the

presumption that the applicants who made applications for

grant of mining lease have vested right to get mining lease.

(ix) Reliance was also placed on the decision of the

Andhra Pradesh High Court, in the case of N. Sarada Mani –

vs- G. Alexander and another17 wherein it was held that the

cardinal principle is that a statute should be interpreted in such

a way as to avoid absurdity and to have harmonious effect. It

was held that the Court must construe a section so as to make

it workable rather than make it meaningless.

16

AIR 1965 SC 1970 17AIR 1998 AP-157

198

(x) Reliance was also placed on the decision of the

Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat and others –vs-

Jayeshbhai Kanjibhai Kalathiya18 decided on 1st March,

2019. In the said decision, the issue was whether certain

Rules framed viz., Gujarat Minor Mineral (Amendment) Rules,

2010, were ultra virus to the rule making power on the ground

that the rule making power of the State Government does not

empower and cannot be stretched to empower the State

Government to make Rules directly prohibiting movement of

mineral so as to impinge upon the freedom guaranteed by

Article 301 of the Constitution. The challenge was in the

context of Article 301 of the Constitution. The Apex Court

struck down the aforesaid Rules as ultra virus. This decision

has no relevance at all in these cases.

(xi) Our attention is also invited to the decision of the

Division Bench of Hyderabad High Court in the case of

Coromandel Mining and Exports Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad and

others –vs- Union of India and others19 wherein

amendments to Section-8, 10, 11 of the said Act of 1957 made

by Act No.10 of 2015 were challenged and the validity thereof

18

Civil Appeal Nos.10373-10374 of 2010 19AIR 2016 Hyderabad 28

199

was upheld. In paragraph 33.2.2, it was held that an application

for a lease has to be necessarily dealt with according to the

Rules in force on the date of disposal of the application. That is

precisely we have held earlier.

Consideration of the question whether the decisions of the coordinate Benches constitute binding precedents 41. Now we go to another set of judgments relied upon by

the petitioners in support of the proposition that sub-rule (1) of

Rule 8-A will have no application to those pending applications,

where it can be demonstrated that the competent authority

failed to take steps for obtaining no objection certificates on

account of no fault of the applicants. An argument has been

canvassed that a contrary view cannot be taken to what is held

in series judgments of the coordinate benches of this Court.

i) The first decision relied upon by the petitioner is of

a division bench which is of 29th June, 2018, in Writ Petition

No.25924-25925/2018 (S.A. Ibrahim –vs- The State of

Karnataka and others). The said judgment extensively

relies upon another decision of the division bench dated 11th

April, 2018 in a batch of writ petitions which were allowed. In

fact, the said decision extensively quotes the judgment and

200

order dated 11th April, 2018 in W.P.No.43235/2017 between

(C. Venkatappa –vs- State of Karnataka and others). The

said judgment and order dated 11th April, 2018 has been

quoted in many other decisions relied upon by the petitioners.

The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment read thus:

“The common features of these petitions are that

the petitioners herein had filed respective

applications seeking grant of quarry lease. Such

applications have been rejected essentially on the

ground that no objection certificates from the

revenue/forest authorities as also the technical

reports were not obtained or were not received.

For ready reference, the facts relating to

W.P. No.43235/2017 may be noticed. The

petitioner herein filed the application on 10.06.2015

in prescribed format-AQL along with prescribed

fees, security deposit, GPS sketch etc., while

seeking grant of quarry lease to extract ornamental

stones over an area of 10 acres in Government

land bearing Survey No.46 of Shambhonahalli

Village in Madhugiri Taluk, Tumakuru District. The

application was rejected by way of the endorsement

dated 11.09.2017, essentially on the ground that as

per the amended Karnataka Minor Mineral

Concession Rules, 1994 ('the Rules'), all such

applications, for which no objection certificates and

201

reports required under Rule 8(5) of the Karnataka

Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules,

2016 were not received earlier to 12.08.2016, were

to be considered ineligible.

The petitioners would submit that all the

referred reports under Rule 8(5) of the Rules

were required to be obtained by the Director,

Department of Mines and Geology, within a

period of 90 days; and the application ought to

have been decided within a period of 4 months

from the date of receipt as per Rule 14 of the

Rules. It is submitted that the authorities

concerned having failed to carry out their

responsibilities; the applicant could not have

been considered ineligible. It is pointed out that

several similar petitions have already been

considered and allowed by this Court while

disapproving similar nature endorsements and

while restoring the applications for

reconsideration. The orders dated 31.08.2017 in

W.P. No.37185/2017; dated 12.09.2017 in W.P.

No.41348/2017; dated 24.10.2017 in W.P.

No.44260/2017; and dated 22.03.2018 in W.P.

No.60155/2016 have been referred.

In the order dated 24.10.2017 in W.P.

No.44260/2017, this Court has taken note of the

provisions contained in the amended Rule 8-B of

202

the Rules and has also taken note of the candid

submissions of the learned Additional Government

Advocate as under:-

"5. Learned Additional Government Advocate

submits that this Court in Writ Petition

No.25421/2017 (DD 04.07.2017) and in

several other matters has held that

applications as that of the petitioner do not

become ineligible if the application was

received by the Competent Authority before

16.06.2015 and further, it is held that it is the

responsibility of the Competent Authority to

consult the authorities referred to in Rule 8(5)

of the Rules and to obtain the certificates and

reports referred to therein. He further

submits that the application of the petitioner

was received by the Competent Authority

before 16.06.2015."

This Court has also considered the earlier

orders passed in the matters and has allowed W.P.

No.60155/2016 by the order dated 22.03.2018,

while observing as under:

"Having regard to the submissions made, this

petition stands disposed of at this stage itself,

while requiring that the concerned authorities

shall send their views/opinions to the

203

authorities of the Mines and Geology

Department within two weeks from today.

The authorities concerned shall

consider and finally decide on the prayer of

the writ petitioner for execution of the lease

deed within four weeks from the date of

production of the certified copy of this order.

No costs."

The proposition aforesaid, for all practical

purposes, apply to these cases too. This Court

has repeatedly observed that it was the

responsibility of the concerned authority /

authorities to obtain the clearances and

technical reports; and for their omissions, the

applications could not have been rejected. We

find no reason to take any different view of the

matter.

Accordingly, all these petitions stand

disposed of at this stage itself, while requiring that

the concerned authorities shall send their views /

opinion / reports to the authorities of Mines and

Geology Department within two weeks from today.

The authorities concerned shall consider and

finally decide on the prayer of the writ petitioners for

execution of the lease deeds within four weeks from

204

the date of production of the certified copy of this

order”.

(emphasis added)

ii) Another decision relied upon is dated 4th July,

2017 of a Division Bench in W.P.No.25421 of 2017 between

(R. Kirankumar –vs- the State of Karnataka and others).

Paragraphs- 3 to 6 of the said judgment and order dated 4th

July, 2017 read thus:

“ 3. Admittedly, the application for grant of lease

was made prior to the amendment of the Karnataka

Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994. Therefore,

the endorsement issued against the writ petitioner

was erroneous, inasmuch as the authorities

proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the

petitioner was ineligible.

4. Mr. Bhanuprakash, learned additional

government advocate, submits that till today, no

objection from the Environment Department has not

reached the concerned authorities. It is the

responsibility of the authorities to obtain such

clearance as, also the technical reports, if any.

5. The concerned authorities are directed to

send their opinion to the authorities of the Mines

and Geology Department within two weeks.

205

6. We set aside the endorsement produced as

Annexure-A to the writ petition and direct the

authorities to consider the request of the petitioner

for execution of the lease deed in his favour, within

four weeks from the date of communication of this

order, subject to no-objection from the environment

department as, also, the technical report from the

departments concerned”.

iii) In the decision dated 24th October, 2017 of a

Division bench in Writ Petition No. 44260/2017 between (M/S.

Mahadeva Minerals –vs- The State of Karnataka and

others), in paragraph-3 it was observed thus:

“3. It is stated by the learned Additional

Government Advocate that the application is

rejected by the aforesaid order on the ground that

the application became ineligible in view of Rule 8-

B(1) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession

Rules, 1994 ('the Rules').

The case of the petition is that his application

comes under the exception stated in Clause (d) of

Rule 8-B(2) of the Rules, and therefore, the

application remained eligible.”

206

Paragraph-4 of the above order quotes Rule 8-B of the said

Rules and thereafter, in paragraphs 5 & 6, the Division bench

observed thus:

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate

submits that this Court in Writ Petition

No.25241/2017 (DD 04.07.2017) and in several

other matters has held that applications as that of

the petitioner do not become ineligible if the

application was received by the Competent

Authority before 16.06.2015 and further, it is held

that it is the responsibility of the Competent

Authority to consult the authorities referred to in

Rule 8(5) of the Rules and to obtain the certificates

and reports referred to therein. He further submits

that the application of the petitioner was received

by the Competent Authority before 16.06.2015.

6. In view of the above, the matter requires to

be reconsidered by respondent No.3 -the Senior

Geologist. The impugned order dated 08.09.2017 is

accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted to

respondent No.3 for reconsideration in accordance

with law. The reconsideration shall be made within

eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of

this order. The petitioner shall furnish a copy of this

order to respondent No.3 to enable him to consider

the matter within the time stipulated above.”

207

42. There are other decisions relied upon which are on the

same lines. A careful perusal of the said decisions show that

the same relate to applications for grant of mining lease made

before 12th August, 2016. The said decisions note that under

sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B, all the applications received prior to

the said date shall become ineligible. The Division benches

were impressed by the submission that on the basis of the

applications made prior to 12th August, 2016, the Director,

Department of Mines and Geology was required to obtain all

the clearances/no objection certificates/reports covered under

sub-rule (5) of Rule 8 within a period of ninety days and Rule

14 (which was omitted with effect from 12th August, 2016)

required the authorities to dispose of the applications within a

period of four months from the date of receipt of the

applications. Therefore, the Courts have taken a view that

where there is a failure on the part of the authorities to obtain

clearances/no objection certificates/reports as required under

sub-rule (5) of rule-8, the embargo of sub-rule (1) of rule 8-B of

making applications ineligible cannot be applied. Therefore,

in the cases where applications pending on 12th August, 2016

which were rejected by subsequent endorsements relying upon

208

sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B, as amended, the Division benches

directed the concerned authorities to obtain clearances/no

objection certificates/reports and thereafter deal with the

applications, virtually by applying the Rules which are

prevailing prior to 12th August, 2016.

43. Now the question is whether the said decisions can be

said to be binding precedents to decide the issues which arise

for consideration in the present petitions. To decide the said

question, we must note here that the issue whether sub-rule (1)

of Rule 8-B was mandatory was neither canvassed nor

considered in any of these orders. The issue which arises in

this group of petitions is whether sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B is

mandatory. This issue was not considered in the aforesaid

decisions. Therefore, the said decisions of coordinate Benches

are not at all binding precedents on the issue. In addition, the

following most relevant aspects were not brought to the notice

of the Court when the aforesaid matters were decided:

(a) The amendments made to the said parent Act of

1957 by the Act No.10 of 2015 especially by

insertion of Section 10-A and introduction of

auction regime;

209

(b) To give effect to the auction regime, sub-section

(1) of Section 10-A provided that the applications

received prior to the date of commencement of Act

No.10 of 2015 (12th January 2015) shall become

ineligible. Sub-section (2) of Section 10-A carved

out an exception to sub-section (1) of Section 10-

A. The Rule 8-B is pari materia with stction 10-A;

(c) The objects and reason of the Act No.10 of 2015

clearly provided that for making the process of grant

of mining leases more transparent, the Legislature

intended to introduce auction regime. For that

reason all the applications pending as on 12th January

2015 were made ineligible subject to specific

exceptions carved out under sub-section (2) of

Section 10-A;

(d) A direction was issued under section 20-A of the said

Act of 1957 by the Central Government to all the

State Governments to revisit the

mechanism/procedure relating to grant of

concessions so that the process is made fair and

transparent;

(e) As noted earlier, the said Rules have been framed

under the said Act of 1957 and thus, it is clear that the

State of Karnataka carried out amendments by the

210

amended Rules, with effect from 12th August, 2016 for

giving effect to the amendments made to the parent

Act with effect from 12th January, 2015 by which all

the pending applications were made ineligible and

auction regime was introduced;

(f) Attention of the Division benches was not invited to

the interpretation put by the Apex Court to Section

10-A in the case of Bhushan Power and Steel

Limited (supra) which lays down what were the

objects sought to be achieved by the Act No. 10 of

2015 and the interpretation put by the Apex Court to

Section 10-A and in particular, sub-section (1) and

sub-section (2) thereof. We have already quoted

paragraph-22 of the said decision which interprets

sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 10-A;

(g) We have also noted that sub-rule (1) and (2) of Rule

8-A are on lines of sub-section (1) and sub-section

(2) of Section 10-A which were considered in the

aforesaid decision of the Apex Court;

(h) The decision of the Apex Court in the case of Muneer

Enterprises (supra) which we are quoted above was

not brought to the notice of the Division benches

which lays down that grant and termination of lease

shall be strictly in accordance with the prescribed

211

stipulations of the said Act of 1957 and Rules made

therein;

(i) The effect of the provision of Rule 14 of the said

Rules which was existed in the rule book as on

12th August, 2016 has not been noticed by the

Division benches. The provisions rule-14 which

was existed in the rule book, prior to 12th August,

2016 read thus:

“14. Disposal of application for grant or

renewal of lease – (1) Application for grant

or renewal of lease shall be disposed of –

(i) in the case of an existing industry within a period

of One hundred and eighty days from the date of

receipt of application failing which the applicants

shall be informed of the reasons for delay within

fifteen days after the expiry of the disposal

period.

(ii) in all other cases within a period of four months

from the date of receipt of applications failing

which the applicants shall be informed of the

delay within fifteen days after the expiry of the

disposal period.”

Sub-rule (2) of the above Rule-14 (prior to amendment)

provided that the applications for grant of mining leases shall

be disposed of within four months from the date of receipt of

212

the applications. More importantly, it provided for

consequences of not deciding the applications within four

months. The Rule does not introduce a deeming fiction that

the application shall be deemed to have been granted. On the

contrary, sub-rule (2) merely provided that the applicants shall

be informed of delay, within fifteen days after the expiry of four

months. Thus, the intention of the rule makers was never to

provide for a deeming fiction.

i) It was not brought to the notice of the Division

benches that except sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B, no

other provision was introduced for saving the

applications which were filed prior to 12th August,

2016 from the applicability of sub-rule (1) of

amended Rule 8-B. The exception to sub-rule (1)

of Rule 8-B was carved out only by sub-rule (2)

which starts with non-obstante clause. Clause (e)

of sub-rule (2) provides that only in the cases

covered by clauses (a) to (d) and (d-1) that the

applications which were pending on 12th August,

2016 will be decided as per the Rules prevailing

prior to 12th August, 2016; and

213

j) It was not pointed out to the Division benches that

by operation of sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B read with

sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B which starts with non-

obstante clause, all applications which were

pending on 12th August, 2016 were made ineligible

except the applications covered by sub-rule (2) of

Rule 8-B. It was not pointed out that sub-rule (1)

was mandatory subject to exceptions carved out

by sub-rule (2).

43. The argument of learned High Court Government Pleader

was that these decisions are not binding precedents. He relied

upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of

Uttar Pradesh and another –vs- Synthetics and Chemicals

Limited and another.20 In paragraph- 40 and 41 of the said

decision, it was held thus:

“40. 'Incuria' literally means 'carelessness'. In

practice per incurium appears to mean 'per

ignoratium.' English Courts have developed this

principle in relaxation of the Rule of stare decisis.

The 'quotable in law' is avoided and ignored if it is

rendered, 'in ignoratium of a statute or other binding

20(1991) 4 SCC 139

214

authority'. (Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co.Ltd.).

Same has been accepted, approved and adopted

by this Court while interpreting Article 141 of the

Constitution which embodies the doctrine of

precedents as a matter of law. In Jaisri Sahu v.

Rajdewan Dubey, this Court while pointing out the

procedure to be followed when conflicting decisions

are placed before a Bench extracted a passage

from Halsbury’s Laws of England incorporating one

of the exceptions when the decision of an Appellate

Court is not binding.

41. Does this principle extend and apply

to a conclusion of law, Which was neither

raised nor preceded by any consideration. In

other words can such conclusions be

considered as declaration of law? Here again

the English Courts and jurists have carved out

an exception to the Rule of precedents. It has

been explained as Rule of sub-silentio. “A

decision passed sub-silentio, in the technical

sense that has come to be attached to that

phrase, when the particular point of law

involved in the decision is not perceived by the

Court or present to its mind”. (Salmond on

jurisprudence 12thEdition., p.153). In Lancaster

Motor Company (London) Ltd. v. Bremith Ltd.

the Court did not feel bound by earlier decision

as it was rendered 'without any argument,

215

without reference to the crucial words of the

Rule and without any citation of the authority'. It

was approved by this Court in Municipal

Corporation of Delhi v.Gurnam Kaur. The Bench

held that, 'precedents sub-silentio and without

argument are of no moment'.The Courts thus have

taken recourse to this principle for relieving from

injustice perpetrated by unjust precedents. A

decision which is not express and is not founded on

reasons nor it proceeds on consideration of issue

cannot be deemed to be a law declared to have a

binding effect as is contemplated by Article 141.

Uniformity and consistency are core of judicial

discipline. But that which escapes in the judgment

without any occasion is not ratio decidendi. In B.

Shama Rao v. Union Territory of Pondicherry it was

observed, 'it is trite to say that a decision is binding

not because of its conclusions but in regard to its

ratio and the principles, laid down therein'. Any

declaration or conclusion arrived without application

of mind or preceded without any reason cannot be

deemed to be declaration of law or authority of a

general nature binding as a precedent.

Restraint in dissenting or overruling is for sake of

stability and uniformity but rigidity beyond

reasonable limits is inimical to the growth of law.”

(emphasis added)

216

He also relied upon another decision of the Apex Court in the

case of Delhi Airtech Services Private Limited and another

–vs- State of Uttar Pradesh and another.21 In particular, on

paragraphs- 43 and 44 which read thus:

“43. The concept of “sub silentio” has been

explained by Salmond on jurisprudence, 12th edition

as follows: (Gurnam Kaur case, SCC pp. 110-11

para-11)

“11……. ‘A decision passes sub silentio, in

the technical sense that has come to be attached to

that phrase, when the particular point of law


Court or present to its mind. The Court may

consciously decide in favour of one party because

of point A, which it considers and pronounces upon.

It may be shown, however, that logically the court

should not have decided in favour of the particular

party unless it also decided Point B in his favour;

but point B was not argued or considered by the

Court. In such circumstances, although Point B

was logically involved in the facts and although the

case had a specific outcome, the decision is not an

authority on point B. Point B is said to pass sub

silentio’ ”. (AIR p.43, para 11)

21(2011) 9 SCC 354

217

43. The aforesaid passage has been

quoted with approval by the three Judge Bench in

Gurnam Kaur. This Court in Gurnam Kaur, in order

to illustrate the aforesaid proposition further relied

on the decision of the English Court in Gerard v.

Worth of Paris Ltd. In Gerad, the only point argued

was on the question of priority of the claimant’s

debt. The Court found that no consideration was

given to the question whether a garnishee order

could be passed. Therefore, a point in respect of

which no argument was advanced and no

citation of authority was made is not binding

and would not be followed. This Court held

that such decisions, which are treated having

been passed sub silentio and without argument,

are of no moment. The Court further explained the

position by saying that one of the Chief reasons

behind the doctrine of precedent is that once a

matter is fully argued and decided the same should

not be reopened and mere casual expressions

carry no weight.”

He also relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of

Purbanchal Cables and Conductors Private Limited –vs-

218

Assam State Electricity Board and another22 and in

particular what is held in paragraphs 59 to 62 which reads thus:

“59. The learned Senior Counsel would rely

on the decision of this Court in Municipal

Corporation, Delhi Vs. Gurnam Kaur. This Court

has held: (SCC pp.110-11, paras 11-12)

“11. Pronouncements of law, which are not part of

the ratio decidendi are classed as obiter dicta and

are not authoritative. With all respect to the learned

Judge who passed the order in Jamna Das case

and to the learned Judge who agreed with him, we

cannot concede that this Court is bound to follow it.

It was delivered without argument, without

reference to the relevant provisions of the Act

conferring express power on the Municipal

Corporation to direct removal of encroachments

from any public place like pavements or public

streets, and without any citation of authority.

Accordingly, we do not propose to uphold the

decision of the High Court because, it seems to us

that it is wrong in principle and cannot be justified

by the terms of the relevant provisions. A decision

should be treated as given per incuriam when it

is given in ignorance of the terms of a statute or

of a rule having the force of a statute. So far as

the order shows, no argument was addressed to

22(2012) 7 SCC 462

219

the court on the question whether or not any

direction could properly be made compelling the

Municipal Corporation to construct a stall at the

pitching site of a pavement squatter. Professor P.J.

Fitzgerald, editor of the Salmond on Jurisprudence,

12th Edn. explains the concept of sub silentio at p.

153 in these words:

“A decision passes sub silentio, in the

technical sense that has come to be attached to

that phrase, when the particular point of law


court or present to its mind. The court may

consciously decide in favour of one party because

of Point A, which it considers and pronounces

upon. It may be shown, however, that logically the

court should not have decided in favour of the

particular party unless it also decided Point B in his

favour; but Point B was not argued or considered

by the court. In such circumstances, although Point

B was logically involved in the facts and although

the case had a specific outcome, the decision is not

an authority on Point B. Point B is said to pass sub

silentio.”

12. In Gerard v. Worth of Paris Ltd., the only

point argued was on the question of priority of the

claimant's debt, and, on this argument being heard,

the court granted the order. No consideration was

given to the question whether a garnishee order

220

could properly be made on an account standing in

the name of the liquidator. When, therefore, this

very point was argued in a subsequent case before

the Court of Appeal in Lancaster Motor Co.

(London) Ltd. v. Bremith Ltd., the Court held itself

not bound by its previous decision. Sir Wilfrid

Greene, M.R., said that he could not help thinking

that the point now raised had been deliberately

passed sub silentio by counsel in order that the

point of substance might be decided. He went on to

say that the point had to be decided by the earlier

Court before it could make the order which it did;

nevertheless, since it was decided ‘without

argument, without reference to the crucial words of

the Rule, and without any citation of authority’, it

was not binding and would not be followed.

Precedents sub silentio and without argument are

of no moment. This Rule has ever since been

followed. One of the chief reasons for the doctrine

of precedent is that a matter that has once been

fully argued and decided should not be allowed to

be reopened.The weight accorded to dicta varies

with the type of dictum. Mere casual expressions

carry no weight at all. Not every passing expression

of a judge, however eminent, can be treated as an

ex cathedra statement, having the weight of

authority.”

221

60. In State of U.P. V. Synthetics and

Chemicals Ltd., His Lordship R.M. Sahai. J., in his

concurring judgment set out the principles of per

incurium and sub silentio and has held thus: (SCC

pp. 162-63, paras 40-41)

“40. ‘Incuria’ literally means ‘carelessness’. In

practice per incuriam appears to mean per

ignoratium. English courts have developed this

principle in relaxation of the Rule of stare decisis.

The ‘quotable in law’ is avoided and ignored if it is

rendered, ‘in ignoratium of a statute or other binding

authority’. (Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd.).

Same has been accepted, approved and adopted

by this Court while interpreting Article 141 of the

Constitution which embodies the doctrine of

precedents as a matter of law. In Jaisri Sahu v.

Rajdewan Dubey, this Court while pointing out the

procedure to be followed when conflicting decisions

are placed before a Bench extracted a passage

from Halsbury's Laws of England incorporating one

of the exceptions when the decision of an appellate

court is not binding.

41. Does this principle extend and apply

to a conclusion of law, which was neither raised

nor preceded by any consideration. In other

words can such conclusions be considered as

declaration of law? Here again the English

222

courts and jurists have carved out an exception

to the Rule of precedents. It has been explained

as Rule of sub-silentio. “A decision passes sub-

silentio, in the technical sense that has come to be

attached to that phrase, when the particular point of

law involved in the decision is not perceived by the

court or present to its mind.” (Salmond on

Jurisprudence, 12thEdn., p. 153). In Lancaster

Motor Co. (London) Ltd. v. Bremith Ltd. the

Court did not feel bound by earlier decision as it

was rendered ‘without any argument, without

reference to the crucial words of the Rule and

without any citation of the authority’. It was

approved by this Court in Municipal Corporation

of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur. The bench held that,

‘precedents sub-silentio and without argument are

of no moment’. The courts thus have taken

recourse to this principle for relieving from injustice

perpetrated by unjust precedents. A decision which

is not express and is not founded on reasons nor it

proceeds on consideration of issue cannot be

deemed to be a law declared to have a binding

effect as is contemplated by Article 141. Uniformity

and consistency are core of judicial discipline. But

that which escapes in the judgment without any

occasion is not ratio decidendi. In B. Shama Rao v.

Union Territory of Pondicherry it was observed,

‘it is trite to say that a decision is binding not

223

because of its conclusions but in regard to its ratio

and the principles, laid down therein’. Any

declaration or conclusion arrived without application

of mind or preceded without any reason cannot be

deemed to be declaration of law or authority of a

general nature binding as a precedent. Restraint in

dissenting or overruling is for sake of stability and

uniformity but rigidity beyond reasonable limits is

inimical to the growth of law.”

61. In Arnit Das V. State of Bihar this

Court held: (SCC p.498, para 20)

“20. A decision not expressed, not

accompanied by reasons and not proceeding on a

conscious consideration of an issue cannot be

deemed to be a law declared to have a binding

effect as is contemplated by Article 141. That which

has escaped in the judgment is not the ratio

decidendi. This is the Rule of sub silentio, in the

technical sense when a particular point of law was

not consciously determined. (see STATE OF U.P.

V. SYNTHETICS & CHEMICALS LTD., SCC, para

41.)”

62. In Tika Ram V. State of Uttar Pradesh,

it was held: (SCC pp.740-41 para 104)

“104. We do not think that the law laid down

in these cases would apply to the present situation.

In all these cases, it has been basically held that a

224

Supreme Court decision does not become a

precedent unless a question is directly raised and

considered therein, so also it does not become a

law declared unless the question is actually decided

upon. We need not take stock of all these cases

and we indeed have no quarrel with the

propositions settled therein”.

(emphasis added)

45. As noted earlier, in the aforesaid decisions of this Court

which are relied upon by the petitioners, there is a reference to

sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-A. The only factual aspect noted therein

is that the concerned authorities have made no efforts to get

the clearances/no objection certificates/reports, as

contemplated by sub-rule (5) of Rule-8. Attention of the

Courts was not brought to the notice of the similar amendments

made to the parent Act 1957. In fact, the effect of sub-rule (2)

of Rule 8-B which starts with non-obstante clause was not

brought to the notice of the Division benches of this Court.

Apart from that, a binding precedent of the decision of the Apex

Court holding that the applications for grant of mining lease

must be decided strictly in accordance with law was also not

brought to the notice of the benches. Moreover, interpretation

225

put by the Apex Court to Section 10-A of the parent Act

namely, the said Act of 1957, was not brought to the notice of

the Division benches. Therefore, in our considered view,

none of the decisions of the aforesaid division benches, relied

upon by the petitioners are the binding precedents, inasmuch

as, the division benches were not called upon to interpret the

provisions of sub-rule (1) read with sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B, as

amended with effect from 12th August, 2016 and that also in the

context of the intention of the Legislature which is reflected

from introduction of various amendments in the said parent Act

of 1957, including Section 10-A with effect from 12th January,

2015. If the said amendments to the said Act of 1957 were

brought to the notice of the division benches, interpretation

which is contrary to the intention of the Legislature would not

have been allowed to be canvassed by the Division Benches.

46. One of the petitioners relied upon a decision of the

learned single Judge of this Court in the case of

Venkateshwara Hill Crushers and others –vs- The State of

Karnataka and others.23 The said decision has no bearing

on the controversy involved in these petitions, as the rule 8-B,

232008 (4) KLJ 230

226

as amended did not fall for consideration of the Court. In

effect, the Court held that the provisions of law prevail over a

circular issued by the Government.

Conclusions

47. In short the conclusions can be summarized as under:

(a) Rule 8-B of the said Rules, as amended on 12th

August, 2016 is constitutionally valid;

(b) All pending applications for grant of mining

leases/licenses under the said Rules which were

filed before 12th August, 2016 and pending on the

said date shall become automatically ineligible

unless the cases specifically fall within any of the

exceptions specifically carved out in clauses (a) to

(d) and (d-1) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B.

(c) Only those application which were filed before 12th

August, 2016 to which any of the clauses (a) to (d)

and (d-1) of sub-rule(2) of Rule 8-B applies, can

be decided in accordance with the Rules

prevailing prior to 12th August, 2016;

(d) While deciding the question whether clauses (a) to

(d) and (d-1) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B are

attracted, if any deeming fiction providing for grant

of deemed no objection certificates is expressly

available under any of the express provisions of

the said Rules such as sub-rule (6) of Rule 8, the

same could be applied;

227

(e) In view of express provisions of sub-rule (1) and

(2) of Rule 8-B, merely because there is a failure

on the part of the authorities to obtain

clearances/no objection certificates/reports, the

mandate of sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B cannot be

ignored and it shall apply with full force inasmuch

as by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B, all applications

received prior to 12th August, 2016 were made

ineligible. The only exception provided is in the

sub-rule (2) in case of the applications which are

governed by clause (a) to (d) and (d-1) of sub-rule

(2). No other exception to sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B

has been provided in the said Rules and therefore,

cannot be carved out by the Court.

48. Now coming to the petitions in hand, wherever the

applications made before 12th August, 2016 are pending as of

today, the same will have to be considered only in the context

of applicability of exceptions carved out by sub-rule (2) of

Rule 8-B. In case of those applications where endorsements/

rejection have been issued, those applications will have to be

reconsidered only for ascertaining whether any of the clauses

(a) to (d) and (d-1) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B are attracted. To

decide whether any of the clauses (a) to (d) and (d-1) are

applicable, factual adjudication will have to be made. It must be

228

noted here if on holding inquiry, it is held that none of the

clauses (a) to (d) and (d-1) are attracted, then the applications

will have to be held as ineligible. In some cases, deeming

provision of sub-rule (6) of Rule 8 has been invoked to

establish applicability of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 (B). Whether

deeming fiction is applicable or not is an issue which requires

factual adjudication. We must note here that as, in this group

we are not called upon to decide the issue of interpretation of

applicability of outer limit of 24 months provided in clause (e) of

sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B, the said issue is kept open. However,

Writ Petition No 38427 of 2018 will be governed by the order

dated 28th June, 2019 and will stand disposed of in terms of the

said order.

49. Accordingly, in view of the law which we have laid down,

we pass the following order in all petitions, except Writ Petition

No 38427 of 2018:-

i) In those petitions where applications made for

grant of mining leases made before 12th August

2016 are pending, the same shall be examined by

the Competent Authority only in the context of

applicability of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B as

amended in the light of what we have held earlier;

229

(ii) In those cases where endorsements of rejection

have been issued, by withdrawing the said

endorsements, the applications for mining leases

filed before 12th August 2016 shall be

reconsidered only in the context of applicability of

sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B. Even applicability of

deeming fiction under sub-rule (6) of Rule 8 shall

be decided wherever such a plea is raised.

Appropriate order shall be passed within a period

of three months from today;

(ii) Appropriate order shall be passed in the light of

what is held by us in paragraph 47 (forty-seven)

above;

(iii) The writ petitions are disposed of on the above

terms;

(iv) There will be no order as to costs.

Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/- JUDGE

VR

Documents

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUjudgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/...EXTRACT ORDINARY BUILDING STONE IN GOVT. LAND BEARING SY.NO.96 OF BETTAHALLI VILLAGE,