This order interprets Rule 8-B of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, framing auctions as the sole method for mineral leases. The court held applications pending before August 12, 2016, are ineligible unless specific exceptions apply, despite authority delays. Coordinate decisions were distinguished as not binding.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
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, 11541155/2019,1187/2019, 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 :
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 :
4
(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
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI M. KESHAVA REDDY, ADV.,)
AND :
5
(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 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 (BY SRI M. KESHAVA REDDY, ADV.,)
... PETITIONER
6
AND :
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS 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 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
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI M. KESHAVA REDDY, ADV.,)
AND :
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS 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 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 (BY SRI K.M. CHANDRASHEKAR, PARTY-IN-PERSON) AND :
... PETITIONER
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO 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 :
(BY SRI V.G. BHANUPRAKASH, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO 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 (BY SRI PRAKASH B.S., ADV.,)
... PETITIONER
AND :
(BY SRI V.G. BHANUPRAKASH, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO 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 :
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.G. BHANUPRAKASH, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO 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 :
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO 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 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI JAYANTH V., ADV.,) AND : 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA 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 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V.G. BHANUPRAKASH, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO 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 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI JAYANTH V, ADV.,) AND :
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.G. BHANUPRAKASH, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 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 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI JAYANTH V, ADV.,)
AND :
(BY SRI V.G. BHANUPRAKASH, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO 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.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI JAYANTH V, ADV.,)
AND :
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO 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. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI JAYANTH V., ADV.,) AND :
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO 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. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI JAYANTH V., ADV.,)
AND :
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO 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 (BY SRI NAVEEN CHANDRA N., ADV.,)
... PETITIONER
AND :
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
20
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO 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
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI NAVEEN CHANDRA N., ADV.,)
AND :
21
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 21.01.2017 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT DIRECTOR AT ANNEXURE-B IN RESPECT OF QUARRY LEASE APPLICATION DATED 16.02.2015 SEEKING TO GRANT/EXECUTE A QUARRY LEASE TO 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
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI NAVEEN CHANDRA N., ADV.,)
AND :
22
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO 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
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI NAVEEN CHANDRA N., ADV.,)
AND :
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO 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 SEEKING TO GRANT/EXECUTE A QUARRY LEASE TO 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 :
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.G. BHANUPRAKASH, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
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 :
26
PATRENAHALLI CHIKKABALLAPURA-562 101
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.G. BHANUPRAKASH, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO 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 :
(BY SRI V.G. BHANUPRAKASH, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO 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 :
28
(MSME AND MINES) VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.G. BHANUPRAKASH, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO 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 :
29
... 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-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
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI K.M. CHANDRASHEKAR, PARTY-IN-PERSON)
AND :
(BY SRI V.G. BHANUPRAKASH, AGA)
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
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI K.M. CHANDRASHEKAR, PARTY-IN-PERSON)
AND :
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.G. BHANUPRAKASH, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO 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 :
(BY SRI V.G. BHANUPRAKASH, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
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 :
34
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.G. BHANUPRAKASH, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 15.09.2017 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, SEEKING TO GRANT/EXECUTE A QUARRY LEASE TO 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 :
35
KALYAN NAGAR 2ND MAIN CHIKKAMGALURU-577 101
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI VISHNU HEGDE, ADV.,)
AND :
36
7. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKKAMAGALURU SUB-DIVISION CHIKKAMAGALURU
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.G. BHANUPRAKASH, AGA)
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
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRAKASH B.S., ADV.,)
AND :
37
COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT (MSME & MINES) VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.G. BHANUPRAKASH, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 17.09.2018 ISSUED BY 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 (BY SRI K.V. SATEESH CHANDRA, ADV.,)
... PETITIONER
38
AND :
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.G. BHANUPRAKASH, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 22.11.2016 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
AND :
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.G. BHANUPRAKASH, AGA)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 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 :
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.G. BHANUPRAKASH, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 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 :
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.G. BHANUPRAKASH, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
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 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI PRAKASH B.S., ADV.,) AND :
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.G. BHANUPRAKASH, AGA)
43
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 14.09.2017 ISSUED BY 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,
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRAKASH B.S., ADV.,)
AND :
44
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.G. BHANUPRAKASH, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD:14.9.2017 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, BANGALORE REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER FOR GRANT OF QUARRY LEASE FOR 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
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI R.G. KOLLE, ADV.,)
AND :
45
VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001
... 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.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 (BY SRI K.B. SHIVA KUMAR, ADV.,)
... PETITIONER
AND :
47
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.G. BHANUPRAKASH, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 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 (BY SRI V. SOMU, ADV.,)
... PETITIONER
AND :
48
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 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.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI V. SOMU, ADV.,)
AND :
49
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTING IN 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.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI V. SOMU, ADV.,)
AND :
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTING IN PASSING THE ENDORSEMENT AT ANNEXURE-A DATED
51
20.09.2017 PASSED BY THE R-3 IN RESPECT OF THE 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 :
52
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTING IN PASSING THE ENDORSEMENT AT ANNEXURE-A DATED 12.10.2017 PASSED BY THE R-3 IN RESPECT OF THE 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. (BY SRI V. SOMU, ADV.,)
... PETITIONER
AND :
53
KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL 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
AND :
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 24.11.2017 ISSUED BY 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.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRAKASH B.S., ADV.,)
AND :
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 15.07.2017 ISSUED BY 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 :
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD 24.11.2017 ISSUED BY 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 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
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI R.G. KOLLE, ADV.,)
AND :
58
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-4 SENIOR GEOLOGIST & COMPETENT AUTHORITY, TO GRANT AND EXECUTE A QUARRY LEASE TO EXTRACT ORDINARY BUILDING STONE IN GOVT. LAND 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 :
59
INDUSTRIES, VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560001
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 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 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI R.G. KOLLE, ADV.,)
AND :
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
61
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 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 (BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR K.B., ADV.,)
... PETITIONER
AND :
62
NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU – 560 009
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 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
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRAKASH B.S., ADV.,)
AND :
63
COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT (MSME & MINES) VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD:26.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, CHICKMAGALURU 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.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 & ETC.
IN WP NO. 5816 OF 2019
BETWEEN :
SRI L.N. SANJEEVKUMAR S/O NEELAKANTAN AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT MIDDLE SCHOOL ROAD LAKKAVALLI TARIKERE TALUK CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 102
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRAKASH B.S., ADV.,)
64
AND :
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD:26.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, CHICKMAGALURU 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.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’ & ETC.
IN WP NO. 6422 OF 2019
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
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRAKASH B.S., ADV.,)
AND :
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 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 (BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR K.B., ADV.,)
... PETITIONER
AND :
67
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 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
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI R.G. KOLLE, ADV.,)
AND :
68
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-4 SENIOR GEOLOGIST & COMPETENT AUTHORITY, TO GRANT & EXECUTE A QUARRY LEASE TO EXTRACT ORDINARY BUILDING STONE IN GOVT. LAND 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.,) AND : 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY (MINES) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES VIKAS SOUDHA, 1ST FLOOR BANGALORE - 560 001
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 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 :
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 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
AND :
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 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 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI R.G. KOLLE, ADV.,) AND :
73
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
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 04.25 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 09.12.2016 PRODUCED AT 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 (BY SRI R.G. KOLLE, ADV.,)
... PETITIONER
AND :
74
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
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 03.22 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.
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 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI R.G. KOLLE, ADV.,)
AND :
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
76
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 04.34 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 07.12.2016 PRODUCED AT 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
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI R.G. KOLLE, ADV.,)
AND :
77
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
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 04.38 ACRES, PURSUANT TO A QUARRY LEASE APPLICATION DATED 06.07.2016 PRODUCED AT ANNEXUER-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. 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 :
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
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 03.09
79
ACRES, PURSUANT TO A QUARRY LEASE APPLICATION DATED 06.07.2016 PRODUCED AT ANENXURE-B, BY QUASHING OR SETTING ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY R-4 DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DATED 18.01.2017 PRODUCED AT 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 :
80
CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK & DISTRICT-562101.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD:16.6.2017 ISSUED BY THE 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 :
81
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 18.02.2017 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 :
82
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 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.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRAKASH B.S., ADV.,)
AND :
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
83
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 22/24.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY, CHICKAMAGALUR 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.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
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRAKASH B.S., ADV.,)
AND :
84
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
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
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRAKASH B.S., ADV.,)
AND :
85
KHANIJA BHAVANA R.C. ROAD, BANGALORE-560001
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 22/24.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY, CHICKAMAGALUR 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.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
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRAKASH B.S., ADV.,)
AND :
86
COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT (MSME & MINES) VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 04.07.2017 ISSUED BY 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 :
87
VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001
.. RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 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 :
89
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT CHIKKABALLAPRUA-562127
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 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
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRAKASH B.S., ADV.,)
AND :
90
DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVANA, R.C.ROAD BANGALORE-560 001
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 01.09.2017 ISSUED BY 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 ENDORSEMENT DATED 01.09.2017 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR 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 :
91
COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT (MSME & MINES) VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001
SIDLAGHATTA ROAD CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 23.10.2017 ISSUED BY 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 6.00 ACRES IN SY.NO.114 OF NANDANAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, MADIKAL HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. THE COPY OF THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 23.10.2017 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR 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
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRAKASH B.S., ADV.,)
AND :
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD:22.8.2017 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST, [MINERAL], DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND 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.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 :
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD. 22.07.2017 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST, (MINERAL), DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY, CHIKKABALLAPUR, REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER FOR GRANT OF QUARRY LEASE FOR
94
QUARRYING BUILDING STONE OVER AN EXTENT OF 10.00 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 :
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD:1.9.2017 ISSUED BY THE
95
SENIOR GEOLOGIST [MINERAL] DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, CHIKKABALLAPUR, 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.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 :
96
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 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 :
97
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 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.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAVINDRA V. REDDY, ADV.,)
AND :
98
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 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 16432 OF 2019
BETWEEN :
M.V. RAMANAREDDY S/O LATE Y. VENKATAREDDY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS LAKKASANDRA (M) MANGALAMADUGUVARIPALLI BAGEPALLI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561212
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAVINDRA V. REDDY, ADV.,)
AND :
99
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 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 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 :
100
VIKAS SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 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
AND :
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 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
AND :
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 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 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRAKASH B.S., ADV.,)
AND :
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 11.07.2017 ISSUED BY 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 7.00 ACRES IN SY.NO.59 OF HOSAHUDYA VILLAGE, BAGEPALLI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. THE COPY OF THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 11.07.2017 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST HAS BEEN PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A & 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 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI PRAKASH B.S., ADV.,) AND :
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 11.07.2017 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST, (MINERAL), DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY, CHIKKABALLAPUR, REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER FOR GRANT OF QUARRY
105
LEASE FOR QUARRYING BUILDING STONE OVER AN EXTENT OF 5.00 ACRES IN SY.NO.65 OF GOUNAPALLI VILLAGE, BAGEPALLI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. THE COPY OF THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 11.07.2017 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST HAS BEEN PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A & 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
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
106
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 05.06.2017 ISSUED BY 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 2.00 ACRES IN SY.NO.65 OF GAUNAPALLI VILLAGE, BAGEPALLI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. THE COPY OF THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 05.06.2017 ISSUED BY THE 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
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI R.G. KOLLE, ADV.,)
AND :
107
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 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
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI R.G. KOLLE, ADV.,)
AND :
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 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. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRAKASH B.S., ADV.,)
AND :
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
110
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 26.12.2016 ISSUED BY 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 ENDORSEMENT DATED 26.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR 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 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRAKASH B.S., ADV.,)
AND :
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
111
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 26.12.2016 ISSUED BY 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 ENDORSEMENT DATED 26.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR 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
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI V. SOMU, ADV.,)
AND :
112
KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTING IN PASSING THE ENDORSEMENT AT ANNEXURE-A DATED 02.11.2017 PASSED BY THE R-3 IN RESPECT OF THE 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 :
113
INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 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
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.G. BHANUPRAKASH, AGA)
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 reclassified 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 16-62015 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 (16-62015) 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 –
(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-
126
Circular No. RD.72.LGP 98, dated 24.02.1999.
(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 SubRule (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.
(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.
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.
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 –
130
(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 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-
131
(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.
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 subrule (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:
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.
(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 subrule (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:
(emphasis added)
Even sub clause (1) of clause-6 is important and reads thus:
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. Section11 introduces provisions for grant of prospecting licence-cummining 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. -
146
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 (d1) 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 subrule (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 subrule (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 subrule (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.
2(2017) 2 SCC 125
154
155
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:
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:
169
Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. The Principal Secretary & Ors. (Allocation of coal blocks Judgment).
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.
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:-
(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. Subsection (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 subsection (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 subrule (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."
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.
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 noncompliance 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 socalled 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.
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 socalled 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–vsKaiser 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 –vsJayeshbhai 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 –vsUnion 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.
205
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:
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:
209
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;
211
stipulations of the said Act of 1957 and Rules made therein;
“14. Disposal of application for grant or renewal of lease – (1) Application for grant or renewal of lease shall be disposed of –
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 nonobstante 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.
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 involved in the decision is not perceived by the 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
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 involved in the decision is not perceived by the 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.”
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
“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.
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 subsilentio, 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, 12th Edn., 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.”
“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.)”
“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:
(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
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:-
229
Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/JUDGE
VR
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016, declaring pre-amendment applications ineligible, is constitutionally valid?
Whether failure of authorities to obtain clearances/no-objection certificates creates an exception to the mandatory inelegibility under Rule 8-B(1)?
Whether coordinate bench decisions holding that delay in obtaining clearances creates an exception constitute binding precedents?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of IndiaExplained¶15
Center for public interest litigations and others –vs- Union of India others (2012) 3 SCC-1 · Who else cites this
Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. v. S.L. SealExplained¶16
Bhushan Power and Steel Limited –vs- S.L. Seal (2017) 2 SCC 125 · Who else cites this
Muneer Enterprises v. Ramgad MineralsExplained¶16
Muneer Enterprises –vs- Ramgad Minerals and Mining Limited (2015) 5 SCC 366 · Who else cites this
Howrah Municipal Corporation v. Ganges Rope Co. Ltd.Explained¶36
Howrah Municipal Corporation and another –vs- Ganges Rope Company Limited (2004) 1 SCC 663 · Who else cites this
State of U.P. v. Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd.Explained¶44
State of U.P. V. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. (1991) 4 SCC 139 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
K. Thirumalesh (and others)
State of Karnataka
Secretary to Govt. Dept of Commerce & Industries
Director Department of Mines & Geology
Deputy Director (Mines) & Competent Authority
Deputy Commissioner
Abhay S. Oka
P.S.Dinesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Abhay S. Oka and P.S.Dinesh Kumar
Parties & counsel
