Smt K M Parvathamma Vs the State of Karnataka

SMT. K.M. PARVATHAMMA W/O. LATE K.M. RUDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, NO.18/35, PRABHU NILAYAM 2^ND LINK ROAD, PARVATI NAGAR BELLARI - 583 101 BY ITS GPA SRI K.M. VISHWANATH SON OF LATE SRI K.M. RUDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI S. SARAVANA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by AMBIKA H B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12690-DB WP No. 13466 of 2024

¶17

THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶18

THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST ARANYA BHAVAN, 18^TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM

¶19

BANGALORE - 560 003.

¶20

THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST BELLARI DIVISION, RADIO PARK OPPOSITE TO ITI COLLEGE MINI ZOO COMPOUND BELLARY - 583 101.

¶21

THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY BALLARI - 583 101.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, ADVOCATE)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF APPROPRIATE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4 TO EXTEND THE TIME PERIOD OF MINING LEASE NO.2514 IN RESPECT OF SY.NOS.6, 7 AND 9 OF RAJAPURA, D.M. BLOCK SANDUR TALUK PERMITTING CONTINUATION OF OPERATION OF MINING ACTIVITIES FOR PERIOD IT GOT FRUSTRATED ON ACCOUNT OF IMPOSSIBILITY AND THERE BY BENEFIT OF EXTENSION OF TIME ON APPLICATION OF FORCE MAJEURE AND ETC,.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:12690-DB WP No. 13466 of 2024

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and

¶29

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)

¶32

Heard learned advocate Mr. S. Saravana for the petitioner

¶33

and learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar

¶34

for the respondents-State.

¶35

In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the

¶36

petitioner has made the following prayers,

¶37

"(i) To direct the respondents No.1 to 4 to extend the time period of Mining Lease No.2514 in respect of Sy,No.6, 7 and 9 of Rajapura, D.M.Block Sandur Taluk permitting continuation of operation of mining activities for period it got frustrated on accound of impossibility and there by benefit of extension of time on application of Force Majeure.

¶38

(ii) To direct the respondents to Extend further period of 6 Months' time for lifting, transporting of considering the representation of petitioner as per Annexure-L & L1 as attracting Rule 12(1)(ff) of the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016."

¶39

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was granted Mining Lease No.2514 by the Government Order dated 19.01.2006

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12690-DB WP No. 13466 of 2024

¶41

in respect of Survey Nos.6, 7 and 9 of Rajapura, D.M. Block, Sandhur Taluka in the forest area to the extent of 24.91 Hectares. In view of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition No.562 of 2009, the mining operations in the entire State including the mining lease of the petitioner were suspended. On 28.09.2013, the Hon'ble Supreme Court permitted for resumption of mining operation. The mining activity area was reduced to 18.2 Hectares of the forest land and 6.6 Hectares of the revenue land.

¶42

3.1 It is the further case of the petitioner that the grant of forest clearance by the Ministry of Environment and Forests was delayed and such clearance was granted only on 23.01.2023 followed by the environment clearance issued by the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Ministry of Environment and Forests, State of Karnataka on 02.03.2023. The consent of operation was granted by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board on 17.03.2023, stated the petitioner.

¶43

3.2 It was stated that the iron ore was required to be disposed of. The petitioner made a representation dated 08.09.2023 to the Director, Department of Mines and Geology under Rule 12(1)(gg) and 12(1)(hh) of the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12690-DB WP No. 13466 of 2024

¶45

Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 seeking six months' time for removal of iron ore, plant and machinery. The Department granted time up to 19.03.2024 to transport the iron ore lying in the leased area. The permission by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests to the Deputy Conservator of Forests for permission to allow the transportation was issued on 04.12.2023.

¶46

3.3 The petitioner made another representation dated 21.02.2024. By the order dated 18.03.2024, permission which was granted earlier came to be extended up to 19.04.2024. It was stated that the forest authority passed orders only on 12.04.2024, leaving no time for the petitioner.

¶47

The respondent-State filed reply affidavit to resist the case and the prayers.

¶48

Thus, the petitioner wanted a writ of mandamus against respondent Nos.1 to 4 to extend the time period of Mining Lease No.2514 for permitting to remove the mined materials on the ground that the benefit of extension of time could not be utilized and stood frustrated and that the extension was further required for the reasons of force majeure .

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12690-DB WP No. 13466 of 2024

¶50

5.1 The prayer was thus to extend the time for further six months. They extended time for six months for lifting, transporting and considering the representation of the petitioner under the Rules of 2016 and to remove and transport the minerals as per report dated 29.07.2020.

¶51

5.2 The extension for removing and transportation of the extracted minerals from the leased area could be granted under Rule 12(1)(gg) of the Rules of 2016. The Rule 12 deals with the terms and conditions of a mining lease to provide that every mining lease shall be subject to the conditions enumerated in sub-clauses.

¶52

5.2.1 Rule 12(1)(gg) reads as under,

¶53

"(gg) the lessee may, after paying the rents, rates and royalties payable under the Act and rules made thereunder or under the lease deed, at the expiry or sooner termination of the lease term or within six calender months thereafter (unless the lease is terminated for default of the lessee, and in that case at any time not less than three calender months nor more than six calender months after such termination) take down and remove for its own benefit, all or any ore mineral excavated during the currency of the lease, engines, machinery, plant, buildings structures, tramways, railways and other works, erections and conveniences which may have been erected, set up or placed by the lessee in or upon the leased lands and which the lessee is not

¶54

7 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:12690-DB WP No. 13466 of 2024

¶56

bound to deliver to the State Government or which the State Government does not desire to purchase;"

¶57

5.2.2 Similarly, Rule 12(1)(hh) is as under,

¶58

"(hh) if at end of six calender months after the expiry or sooner termination of the lease term there shall remain in or upon the leased land, any ore or mineral, engines, machinery, plant, buildings structures, tramways, railways and other work, erections and conveniences or other property which are not required by the lessee in connection with operations in any other lands held by it under prospecting licence or mining lease, the same shall, if not removed by the lessee within one calender month of being notified to do so by the State Government, be deemed to become the property of the State Government and may be sold or disposed of in such manner as the State Government shall deem fit without liability to pay any compensation or to account to the lessee in respect thereof."

¶59

5.3 There is no dispute that the petitioner is already granted the

¶60

extension to remove the minerals from the mining site as permissible under the aforesaid Rule 12(1)(gg) and 12(1)(hh). The petitioner wants the benefit of Rule 12(1)(ff).

¶61

5.3.1 The said Rule 12(1)(ff) of the Rules of 2016 reads as under,

¶62

"(ff) failure on the part of the lessee to fulfil any of the terms and conditions of the Act and rules made thereunder or under the mining lease shall not give the Central Government or State Government any

¶63

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12690-DB WP No. 13466 of 2024

¶64

claim against the lessee or be deemed a breach of the lease, in so far as such failure is considered by the relevant Government to arise from force majeure. In the event of any delay by the lessee to fulfill any of the terms and conditions of the Act and rules made thereunder or under the mining lease on account of a force majeure event, the period of such delay shall be added to the period fixed by these rules or the mining lease.

¶65

In this clause the expression "force majeure" means act of God, war, insurrection, riot, civil commotion, strike, earth quake, tide, storm, tidal wave, flood, lightning, explosion, fire, earthquake and any other happening which the lessee could not reasonably prevent or control."

¶66

5.4 On plain reading of the aforesaid Rule 12(1)(ff), it is clear that the said Rule is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. It contemplates the extension on the ground of force majeure. The expression is explained in the Rule itself to mean the act of God, war, insurrection, riot, civil commotion, strike, earth quake, etc. None of the contingencies apply in the case of the petitioner to entitle the petitioner to the benefit of the extension.

¶67

5.5 The petitioner cannot be granted extension of time beyond six months which it has already availed on the ground of force majeure, as no such event has prevented the petitioner.

¶68