Dismissed

Khaleel Ahmed N v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Mar 2024WP/2496/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dealt with a writ petition challenging the denial of renewal for a mining lease due to time-barred application and unpaid dues. The court held that the statutory limitation is mandatory with no provision for condonation. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as the application for renewal was time-barred and the petitioner was in arrears of lease dues.

Khaleel Ahmed N Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:10301-DB WP No. 2496 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024 PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 2496 OF 2023 (GM-MM_S)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

KHALEEL AHMED N S/O NAZEER AHAMED AGED 44 YEARS R/AT RML NAGAR, 2^ND STAGE UNITY HALLL BACKSIDE OPP. TO FURKAN MASJID SHIMOGA – 577 205

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI MOHAMMAD ANWAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI RAHAMATHULLA KOTHWAL, ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by AMBIKA H B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPATMENTOF COMMECE AND INDUSTRIES (MSME MINES AND TEXTILE) VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE – 560 001

¶16

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

¶17

THE JOINT DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:10301-DB WP No. 2496 of 2023

¶20

GEOLOGY (SOUTH REGION) CA4, 1^ST D CROSS, 4^TH MAIN BLOCK I, MUDA EMPLOYEES LAYOUT RAMAKRISHNA NAGARA MYSURU – 570 022

¶21

THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST / AUTHORISED OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY NEAR RAIWAY STATION TANK MOHALAL SHIMOGA – 577 201

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(SRI. S. S. MAHENDRA, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT No-3 AUTHORITY DATED 09.12.2022 PASSED IN REVIEW PETITION No.32/2020-21 VIDE ANNEXURE-M AND ETC.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRILIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, KRISHNA S DIXIT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The challenge in this writ petition is to the denial of request for renewal of mining lease. Admittedly, this request was made after the expiry of the lease by efflux of time. The Authorities rejected the request for renewal relying upon the provisions of Rule 21(2) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, which provides for renewal if applied for 90 days prior to the expiry of the lease. The matter was taken in revision under Rule 53 of 1994 Rules and that too was negatived.

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:10301-DB WP No. 2496 of 2023

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues

¶30

that his client was looking after his ailing father in a hospital at Mangalore and therefore he could not seek renewal within the stipulated period; if there is delay, the same could have been condoned by the jurisdictional authority and that having not being done the request of renewal has been unjustifiably rejected warranting interference of this court.

¶31

After service of notice, the respondent – authorities having entered appearance through the learned Additional Government Advocate, resist the petition by filing Statement of Objections. Learned Additional Government Advocate contends that the prescription of limitation period of 90 days under Rule 21(2) of 1994 Rules is mandatory and therefore the authorities had no option than to reject the request for renewal of lease. He also contends that there is no provision in the 1994 Rules for condoning or relaxing the statutory limitation. He also contends that rejection is justified on yet another ground namely the petitioner has remained in arrears of Rs.1,26,260/-, as well. So contending he seeks dismissal of the petition.

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:10301-DB WP No. 2496 of 2023

¶33

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, we are broadly in agreement with the submission of learned Addl. Government Advocate who heavily banks upon the provisions of Rule 21(2) of 1994 Rules which prescribe a period of 90 days prior to expiry of the lease for seeking its renewal. The text & context of this provision leaves no manner of doubt as its being mandatory. When there is no provision for condonation of delay or for relaxing the condition prescribed for seeking renewal, authorities are hand-tied. They cannot condone the delay or relax the conditions prescribed by law in the absence of statutory authorization. This idea having animated the impugned orders, the challenge to the same is liable to be rejected.

¶34

The above apart, the culpable conduct of the petitioner in remaining in arrears of a huge sum of money payable to the State in terms of the lease in question disentitles him to the renewal of lease. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that his client is ready and willing to pay the arrears, does not make any difference to the legal prescription in the light of which the request for renewal of lease is denied by the original authority and that

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:10301-DB WP No. 2496 of 2023

¶36

decision has been affirmed by the Revisional Authority. It will be highly appreciated if he remits the said amount to the State Exchequer which is due to the State.

¶37

In the above circumstances, this petition being devoid of merits is liable to be and accordingly dismissed, costs having been

made easy.

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE

AHB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49

Khaleel Ahmed N v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khaleel Ahmed N v. the State of Karnataka

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

The Management of Karnataka State Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs Smt. C Sujatha

M/S Cathedral Parish Society, Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Y L Nyamagoudar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Chowdegowda Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Mir Naveed Ahmed Vs Sri N Jayaram

Sri Ashok R Kabadi Vs State of Karnataka