Dismissed

Smt Lakshmidevamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Jan 2021WP/368/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the rejection of a quarrying lease renewal. The Court held that the petitioner was only entitled to deemed extension up to March 31, 2020, and offered no monitory relief against the delay. The Court dismissed the petition, stating the remedy for Rule 3-F benefits lies with the petitioner.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt Lakshmidevamma Vs State of Karnataka — Mining and Natural Resources | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021 PRESENT

¶3

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

¶4

AND

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.368 OF 2021(GM-MM-S)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA W/O VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDENT OF BELLUR VILLAGE NARASAPURA HOBLI KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563 133

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SHRI. AMARESH .A .ANGADI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001

¶12

2 . THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR - 563 101 (BY SHRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, AGA)

¶13

... RESPONDENTS

¶14

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH AN IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND

¶16

¶17

GEOLOGY, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR DATED 15.06.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

A quarrying lease was granted to the petitioner under the provisions of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short ‘the said Rules’). The lease was granted on 30^th September 1996 for a period of five years. The lease was renewed thereafter up to 29^th September 2011. According to the case of the petitioner, the application for renewal of lease was made on 23^rd June 2011 which was not considered. By the impugned order, the Senior Geologist has come to the conclusion that under sub-rule (4) of Rule 8-A of the said Rules, the lease could have been extended at the highest till 31^st March 2020.

¶21

The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe and economically weaker section of the society and injustice has been done to him by keeping his application pending which was filed on 23^rd June 2011. By the impugned order at Annexure-A, the application has been erroneously rejected. The submission of the learned counsel is that the

¶22

¶23

case of the petitioner ought to have been considered under Rule 3-F of the said Rules.

¶24

We have considered the submissions. The petitioner never sought for a writ of mandamus for disposal of the application made on 23^rd June 2011. When the application was considered, Rule 26 of the said Rules was already repealed and therefore, the case of the petitioner was considered only under Rule 8-A as incorporated with effect from 12^th August 2016. As the original licence was granted on 20^th September 1996, as per sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-A of the said Rules, the petitioner was entitled to lease for a period of twenty years from the date of the original grant.

¶25

Under sub-rule (4) of Rule 8-A, the petitioner was entitled for deemed extension up to the period ending 31^st March 2020 or till the completion of the renewal period or for a period of twenty years from the date of grant of the said lease or licence whichever is later. In this case, it is not shown that the lease could have been renewed beyond 31^st March 2020. Therefore, even under sub-rule (4) of Rule 8-A of the said Rules, the petitioner was entitled to renewal of the lease at the highest up to 31^st March 2020. Now no purpose will be served

¶26

¶27

by granting extension. If according to the case of the petitioner, he was unlawfully denied the benefit of deemed extension, his only remedy is to seek monitory relief from appropriate forum.

¶28

Therefore, we cannot find fault with the impugned order. If the petitioner wants to claim grant of lease under Rule 3-F of the said Rules, it is for him to invoke Rule 3-F of the said Rules in accordance with law.

¶29

6. Subject to what is observed above, the writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE

*alb/-.

Smt Lakshmidevamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt Lakshmidevamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Devamma Vs the Tahasildar

Sri R Sheik Ahamed Vs Sri L K Atheeq IAS

Smt. v. Pushpa Vs Sri. H. R. Mahadev

M/S Sanwariya Groups Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramamurthy v S Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Errol Fernandes Vs Union of India