The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a notification scheduling an e-auction of the petitioner's old iron ore stock. The Court held that in light of the Supreme Court's order mandating the auction, no interference was justified and no relief was granted.
No relief was granted to the petitioner; the petition was dismissed.
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:37237-DB WP No. 24632 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH 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. 24632 OF 2024 (GM-MM-S)
BETWEEN:
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT HAVING OFFICE AT No.140(1) KOLACHALAM COMPOUND BELLARY – 583 101 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNERS SRI PUTTUSWAMY GOWDA S/O. LATE NINGAIAH.
…PETITIONER
(BY MS. ANUPARNA BORDOLOI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: High Court of Karnataka
AND:
RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE – 560 001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R1 TO 3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER, QUASHING THE LETTER DATED 26.08.2024 IN SO FAR AS COMMODITIES MENTIONED IN SERIAL No. 6 & 7 WHICH IS ADDRESSED BY RESPONDENT No. 2 TO RESPONDENT No. 4 AS THE SAME IS HIGHLY ARBITRARY, AND WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF LAW (ANNEXURE-A) & ETC,.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
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 Ms. Anuparna Bordoloi for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar for respondent-State and its authorities, upon service of copy of the petition in advance.
the its further case that respondent No.2-Director, Department of Mines and Geology permitted the petitioner to store 3,000 tons of sub-grade iron ore lumps. The decision reflected in the impugned communication dated 26.08.2024 provides for auctioning of the said old iron ore stock of the petitioner, which is one of the five leaseholders whose old iron ore stock is also to be subjected to e-auction.
3.1 At the outset, it is to be noticed from the record of the petition that identical communication scheduling e-auction was issued by the authorities on 04.03.2024. The auction was to take place on 16.03.2024. The said auction notice was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.7950 of 2024 which was not entertained as the auction had already taken place and came to be disposed of. The copy of the said order passed by the Division Bench figures on record.
Karnataka & others, passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No.562 of
2009 and other connected petitions. It was pointed out that the auctioning of the old iron ore of the petitioner and other leaseholders is being acted upon in light of the said order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the directions contained therein.
5.1 The Central Empowered Committee was constituted and was directed to submit report with regard to certain mining leases granted by the State of Karnataka in the District of Bellary. As is evident from the copy of the lease deed produced on record of the petition, the mining lease was granted to the petitioner in survey No.1 in Vitalapura Village, Sandur Taluka, Bellary District.
5.2. Admittedly, the mining leases categorized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B-1 category which were seven in numbers included the petitioner-Hind Traders and the same finds in survey No.1 admeasuring 19.63 Hectares at Vitalapura Village, Sandur Taluka, Bellary District was mentioned in the order. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had directed the Joint Team to prepare sketches of the said mining leases including that of petitioner by the order dated 28.09.2022 keeping the said order in abeyance till the interstate boundary was demarcated, since all the seven mining were located between the State of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh.
5.3 It was recorded that the subsequently the authorities demarcated the boundaries and the boundaries were fixed. It also appears that earlier on 29.07.2011, the Apex Court imposed a temporary ban on mining operations in Bellary District as per decision in State of Andra Pradesh v. Obulapuram Mining Company (P) Ltd, [2011 (12) SCC 491] .
5.4. It further appears that the Central Empowered Committee had requested National Institute of Technology, Suratkhal, Karnataka to carry out the survey at the ground level. Both the Governments, that is the Government of Andra Pradesh and
Government of Karnataka had suggested four officers who comprised the team which was the part of carrying out the survey.
6.2. No relief could be granted to the petitioner. At the same time, it is observed that all the post auction rights of the petitioner shall be regulated and governed by the order dated 14.03.2024 passed
in Samaj Parivartana Samudaya ( supra ) and any further order which may be passed.
In view of dismissal of the petition, the interlocutory applications would not survive and they stand accordingly disposed of.
Sd/(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/(K V ARAVIND) JUDGE
DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the direction of the Supreme Court to conduct an e-auction of old iron ore stock.
Whether the authorities are justified in auctioning the petitioner's stock pursuant to the Supreme Court order dated 14.03.2024.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Samaj Parivartana Samudaya & others Vs. State of Karnataka & othersRelied on¶36
Samaj Parivartana Samudaya & others Vs. State of Karnataka & others, Writ Petition (Civil) No.562 of 2009
T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad Vs. Union of India & othersReferred¶40
T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad Vs. Union of India & others
State of Andra Pradesh v. Obulapuram Mining Company (P) LtdReferred¶44
State of Andra Pradesh v. Obulapuram Mining Company (P) Ltd, [2011 (12) SCC 491] · Who else cites this
M/s. Hind Traders
State of Karnataka
The Director, Department of Mines and Geology
The Deputy Director, Department of Mines and Geology
Metal Steel Transport Corporation
N. V. Anjaria
K V Aravind
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
