Dismissed

B Hanumanthappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Nov 2020WP/12198/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought to quash an order rejecting a lease renewal application for a quarry expired in 2004. The Court held that later amendments allowing delayed applications did not apply retroactively and the interim condonation order was illegal as it lacked statutory authority, leading to the rejection.

What did the court decide?

The petition under Article 226 is rejected; the impugned order rejecting the renewal application is upheld.

B Hanumanthappa Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.12198 OF 2020 (GM-MM-S)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

B.HANUMANTHAPPA S/O LATE C.M.BAIYANNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/OF DEVANAHALLI VILLAGE NARASAPURA HOBLI KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT – 563 133

¶11

... PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI AMARESH A. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS DIRECTOR

¶15

DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY

¶16

KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD

¶17

BANGALORE – 560 001

¶18

THE SENIOR GELOGIST

¶19

DEPT. OF MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶20

KOLAR DISTRICT

¶21

KOLAR – 563 101

¶22

... RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI I.THARANATH POOJARY, AGA)

¶24

--THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING AN IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT – THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST, DEPT. OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, KOLAR

¶25

¶26

DISTRICT, KOLAR DATED 05.05.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶27

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

ORDER

¶29

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶30

On 10^th September 1999, the petitioner was granted a quarrying lease under the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1994 (for short “the said Rules of 1994”) for a period of 5

¶31

years. Admittedly, the lease expired on 9^th September 2004. On 18^th October 2004, the petitioner applied for renewal of the lease. By the order issued on 8^th November 2004, the application for renewal was not entertained on the ground that it was not filed within the period specified under sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 of the said Rules of 1994 (as it existed before 12^th

¶32

August 2016). The petitioner preferred a revision petition under sub-rule (1) of Rule 53 of the said Rules of 1994 against the said order. By the order dated 26^th February 2009, the revision petition was allowed. The Revisional Authority purportedly condone the delay in submitting the renewal application and directed the Competent Authority to process the renewal application of the petitioner. The challenge in this

¶33

¶34

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 5^th May 2020 passed by the Senior Geologist (the second respondent) by which the application for renewal of the lease has been rejected. The second respondent referred to sub-rule (4) of Rule 8-A of the said Rules of 1994 as amended with effect from 12^th August 2016 and held that as the application for renewal was not filed within the prescribed time, the prayer for renewal of lease as provided under sub-rule (4) of Rule 8-A of the said Rules of 1994 stands rejected.

¶35

The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the order dated 26^th February 2009 passed by the Revisional Authority was binding on the second respondent and, therefore, the issue regarding delay in filing the renewal application could not have been considered by the second respondent. He placed reliance on sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B of the said Rules of 1994 as amended with effect from 12^th August 2016.

¶36

We have considered the submissions. When the lease granted to the petitioner expired on 9^th September 2004, sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 of the said Rules of 1994 was on the rule book which required the application for renewal of lease to

¶37

¶38

be made on or before 90 days before expiry of the lease. A proviso was added on 16^th December 2013 by which a provision was made for entertaining the application for renewal received after the period prescribed under sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 of the said Rules of 1994 subject to payment of penalty.

¶39

Therefore, when the lease granted to the petitioner expired, the requirement of law was to make an application for renewal of the lease on or before 90 days before the expiry of the lease. As on that date, there was no provision for condoning the delay.

¶40

A perusal of the order of the Revisional Authority dated 26^th February 2009 shows that the Revisional Authority has purported to condone the delay in filing the renewal application under the said Rules of 1994. On that day, there was no power vesting in any Authority to condone the delay in filing the renewal application. Thus, the order of the Revisional Authority dated 26^th February 2009 is per se illegal and a Writ Court cannot enforce the said order. The Revisional Authority exercised jurisdiction not vested in it. If such illegal order is relied upon and enforced by the Writ Court, it will perpetuate illegality. After all, a remedy of writ petition is always equitable and discretionary.

¶41

¶42

The impugned order dated 5^th April 2020 refers to sub-rule (4) of Rule 8-A of the said Rules of 1994 as amended with effect from 12^th August 2016 which provides for deemed extension of lease for a period of 20 years. However, sub-rule (4) of Rule 8-A of the said Rules of 1994 clearly lays down that the lessee is entitled to deemed extension subject to a condition that the renewal application had been made within the time period prescribed for filing such a renewal application. In the present case, admittedly, the renewal application was not filed within the time stipulated by the said Rules of 1994. Therefore, no fault can be found when the second respondent declined to grant deemed extension as provided in sub-rule (4) of Rule 8-A of the said Rules of 1994.

¶43

Now, we come to Rule 8-B of the said Rules of 1994 which was brought on the Rule book with effect from 12^th August 2016. It is applicable to the applications received for grant of lease or licence which were pending on 12^th August 2016. Rule 8-B of the said Rules of 1994 is not applicable to the cases where the applications for renewal of lease were pending on 12^th August 2016. Therefore, the petitioner cannot

¶44

¶45

rely upon sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B of the said Rules of 1994 which carves out an exception of sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B.

¶46

Therefore, there is no scope to interfere with the impugned order dated 5^th May 2020 passed by the second respondent in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As stated earlier, the order of the Revisional Authority is completely illegal and we cannot enforce the said order which goes to the extent of condoning the delay in filing the renewal application though there was no provision for doing so.

¶47

The petition is accordingly rejected.

¶48

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

AHB

B Hanumanthappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B Hanumanthappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Durga Prasad Vs Reverend Prasanna Kumar Samuel

Mr. John Gabriel D Silva Vs State of Karnataka

Sri R a Pradeep Vs Sri N Murari

Mr. G Vaman Pai Vs Mr. Naveen Prabhu

M K Devendra Kumar Vs Dr.Venkatesh

Sri M B Ravishankar Vs Sri Gurudath Heggade, IAS