Dismissed

Sri Ganganna T v. the Senior Geologist

Karnataka HC8 Jan 2021WP/263/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court rejected a writ petition seeking a mandamus for grant of a quarrying lease. The court held that due to the petitioner's long inaction and failure to follow up for six years, invocation of writ jurisdiction was not fit and proper.

What did the court decide?

The petition was rejected on the ground of the petitioner's long inaction and failure to invoke writ jurisdiction.

Sri Ganganna T Vs the Senior Geologist — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 08^th DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.263 OF 2021 (GM-MM-S)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI GANGANNA T., S/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS KARIGEERAHALLI VILLAGE NELLIGERE POST BELLURU HOBLI NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA-571 432 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.P.MAHESHA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA-571 401

¶12

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

¶13

THE REGIONAL CONSERVATOR OF FOREST 6^TH CROSS, SUBASH NAGAR

¶14

¶15

MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA-571 401

¶16

... RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI.TARANATH POOJARY, AGA)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 AND R-2 TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-B FOR GRANT OF QUARRYING LEASE IN RESPECT OF SY.NO.10 OF KAREEJERANAHALLI VILLAGE, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, TO AN EXTENT OF 1 ACRE AND ETC.

¶19

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus directing

¶22

the respondents to decide the application made by the petitioner for grant of quarrying lease way back on 6^th November, 2014.

¶23

Perusal of the averments made in the petition shows that after 6^th November, 2014 even a representation in writing has not been made by the petitioner. Such a representation was made for the first time on 23^rd November, 2020. Thus, even the representation was made more than six years after the date of filing of the application for grant of quarrying lease.

¶24

¶25

The writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is always discretionary and equitable. Considering the long inaction on the part of the petitioner, this is not a fit case where he should be allowed to invoke jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and the petition is rejected only on that ground.

¶26

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶27

Sd/JUDGE

¶28

Sri Ganganna T v. the Senior Geologist

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ganganna T v. the Senior Geologist

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

Mineral Enterprises Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Mathew Thomas Vs State of Karnataka

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

Sri Shivarudraiah v S Vs Sri H.R. Mahadev

Sri Parvatheesha B Vs Sri H.R. Mahadev

Smt. Sandhya Arun Vs Sri H.R. Mahadev