A writ petition challenged rejection of a stone mining lease renewal application and dismissal of revision against it. The court upheld the revisional authority's decision, finding the petitioner's storage of stones on a public path and repeated absence from hearings disentitled her to relief, and dismissed the petition.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:35429-DB WP No. 21602 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. N.V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 21602 OF 2024 (GM-MM-S)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by PRABHAKAR SWETHA KRISHNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka
NOW PRESENTLY R/AT DEVI KRIPA COMPLEX OPP. JULIYANA CHICKEN STALL NEAR PETROL BUNK MAIN ROAD, SHIRVA KAUP TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-574 116
(BY SRI RAJESHA SHETTIGARA, ADVOCATE)
…PETITIONER
AND:
NC: 2024:KHC:35429-DB WP No. 21602 of 2024
BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ATICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.06.2022 PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT IN REVISION NO.42/2013 (ANNEXURE-A) AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND CONSEQUENTLY REMAND THE MATTER TO 2ND RESPONDENT WITH A DIRECTION TO 2ND RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER REVISION PETITION NO.42/2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
NC: 2024:KHC:35429-DB WP No. 21602 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)
Heard learned advocate Mr. Rajesha Shettigara for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Smt. Niloufer Akbar who appears upon service of copy of the petition in advance and who assisted the Court.
Upon expiry of the term of the lease, the lease was required to be renewed in accordance with law.
3.1 The contractor filed application for renewal of quarry lease on 30.01.2010 which came be rejected by the order dated 30.04.2010 on the ground that it was not filed ninety days prior to the expiry of the period as required under Rules 21(2) and 31-N of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994.
3.2 It appears that Revision Petition No.211 of 2011 filed against the said order dated 30.04.2010 came to be allowed on 10.11.2011 by remanding the case back.
3.3 It further appears that the petitioner had stored the stones on the public way and that the said stones were not removed causing obstruction and impediments for the public movement and the Tahsildar, Udupi Taluka did not recommend the renewal of the quarry.
the revisional authority, culminating into the order now impugned in this petition.
3.5 It was recorded by the revisional authority that when the Tahsildar was called upon to issue the No Objection Letter for the purpose of renewal of the lease, the communication dated 10.08.2012 was ensued, whereafter the revenue inspector conducted the spot inspection. In the inspection, it was found that the quarry stones were filled in public path.
3.6 The petitioner was directed to remove the stones, however, no response was given. Notice was issued to the contractor to remove the stones. Even as the renewal was being considered, the stones were not removed and were continued to be stored on the public path. The Tahsildar, as stated above did not favour the renewal and objected the renewal.
NC: 2024:KHC:35429-DB WP No. 21602 of 2024
submit his case. The petitioner consistently remained absent in all the hearings.
5.1 Even otherwise, the conduct of the petitioner in not remaining present and neglecting the notices, superadded by the fact that he continued to store the stones on the public way while his case was considered, disentitled the petitioner from seeking any relief either in law or equitably.
NC: 2024:KHC:35429-DB WP No. 21602 of 2024
the aforesaid grounds and considerations which are cogent and
could be validly relied on by the revisional authority.
Sd/(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/(K V ARAVIND) JUDGE
KPS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the revisional authority's dismissal of Revision No.42/2013 rejecting the petitioner's quarry lease renewal was infirm.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Kamala W/o Late Ayyaswamy
State of Karnataka, Department of Mines and Geology
Joint Director, Mines and Geology Department, South Zone, Mysore
The Senior Geologist, Mines and Geology Department
The Deputy Commissioner, Udupi District
The Tahsildar, Kaup Taluk
N. V. Anjaria
K. V. Aravind
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
