Acting Chief Justice dismissed this writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of a mining amendment rule, relying on a Division Bench judgment in connected litigation where the challenge to the rule and its applicability were already negatived.
The writ petition stands dismissed; the judgment in connected matters applies mutatis mutandis.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.4756 OF 2020 (GM-MM-S)
BETWEEN:
SRI RUDRESH S/O SRI VEERABHADRAIAH AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RESIDENT AT CHIKKAGANGAVADI VILLAGE, KOOTAGAL HOBLI, RAMANAGAR TALUK RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562159 BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRAKASH B S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
2
KHANIJA BHAVANA, R C ROAD BANGALORE-560001
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.S.MAHENDRA, AGA)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT RULE 36(5) OF THE KARNATAKA MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION (AMENDMENT) RULES, 2016 DATED 12.08.2016 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, NULL AND VOID AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly stated before this Court that the issue involved in the present case stands concluded on account of the judgment delivered in W.P.No.137/2017 and other connected matters decided on 24.03.2021. The Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case has passed the following order:
"In all these writ petitions, the challenge is to the validity of sub-rule (5) of Rule 36 of the Karnataka
3
Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2016, (for short, ‘the said Rules of 2016’) as amended with effect from 12th August 2016.
4
No order as to costs.
The pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/JUDGE
CA
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to admit the writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 36(5) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2016 despite prior connected judgments negating th
Sri Rudresh S/o Sri Veerabhadraiah
The State of Karnataka
Satish Chandra Sharma
Sachin Shankar Magadum
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
