Disposed

M/S Sudharshan Stone Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Jan 2021WP/14942/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka directed the State Government to consider a recommendation for deeming extension of a quarrying lease period under the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016, and to pass appropriate orders within one month.

What did the court decide?

Direct the State Government to consider the recommendation for deemed extension and pass appropriate orders within one month.

M/S Sudharshan Stone Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs… — Mining and Natural Resources | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021 PRESENT

¶4

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

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.14942 OF 2020(GM-MM-S)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/S. SUDHARSHAN STONE ENTERPRISES (P) LTD A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SMT. RATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.25 9^TH CROSS,KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU - 560 020

¶10

... PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SHRI. PRAKASH .B.S, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTREIS (MSME AND MINES) VIKASA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKARVEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

3 . THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST MINERAL DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY 1^ST CROSS, VIDYANAGAR MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401

¶17

... RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SHRI. TARANATH POOJARY, AGA)

¶19

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ISSUE CORRIGENDUM WITHIN A TIME FRAME AMENDING THE PERIOD OF THE LEASE IN THE QUARRYING LEASE DEED NO.403 DATED:30.12.2000 VIDE ANNEXURE-A DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO TREAT THE LEASE AS GRANTED FOR A PERIOD OF 30 YEARS IN PLACE OF 20 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF INCEPTION I.E., 30.12.2000 AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶24

and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶25

The petitioner was granted a quarrying lease for a period of twenty years with effect from 30th December 2020, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-"A". The only contention raised in this writ petition in the light of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8A of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment)

¶26

¶27

Rules, 2016 (for short "the said Rules") is that the lease period

¶28

ought to have been thirty years instead of twenty years.

¶29

Today, the learned Additional Government Advocate has placed on record the copy of the letter dated 6^th January 2021 submitted by the Director of the Department of Mines and Geology to the State Government recommending grant of deemed extension in view of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8A of the said Rules.

¶30

In the memo, it is stated that once the State Government accords approval to the said proposal of the Director of the Department of Mines and Geology, necessary steps will be taken. Hence, we pass the following order:

¶31

(i) We direct the State Government to consider the recommendation dated 6^th January 2021 submitted by the Director of Mines which is produced on record along with the memo of today's date;

¶32

(ii) The State Government shall pass appropriate orders within a maximum period of one month from today;

¶33

(iii) Needless to say that once the State Government approves grant of extension,

¶34

¶35

necessary supplementary lease shall be immediately executed in favour of the petitioner;

¶36

(iv) The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE

*ALB/-.

M/S Sudharshan Stone Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sudharshan Stone Enterprises (P) Ltd. 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

Smt. C S Suma Vs Smt Archana

Shrinivas Prasad Stone Crushers Vs the Commissioner of Mines and Geology

Smt. Roopa R. Shetty Vs the Commissioner of Mines and Geology

Kullaiah Vs Chandraiah

Sri. G v Nagaraju Vs Smt. Latha

M/S Mantri Espana Residential Apartment Owners Association Vs the Regional Officer