Dismissed¶53

M/S. Kadamba Associates v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Nov 2025WP/2023/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: quarry lease; minor mineral steatite; Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (Rule 8-B; Rule 53(4)); KMMC (Amendment) Rules 2016 and 2023; Application No.1214 AML 2005 dated 05.11.2005; overlap of applied area; Survey Nos.30-31, Shingenahalli Village, Tiptur Taluk, Tumakuru; Revision Petition No.3/2018-19; condonation/delay of four years ten months; communication of rejection order dated 09.07.2013; endorsement dated 06.01.2024 No.DMG/DDT/QLA104/2010-11/2023-24/5708; Department of Mines and Geology; certiorari under Articles 226 & 227; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The contention that the petitioner's quarry lease application stands resurrected by the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2023 and had been kept pending is without merit. ¶47

M/S. Kadamba Associates Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether, by virtue of Rule 8-B of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 and the Amendment Rules of 2016/2023, the petitioner's quarry lease application rejected on 09.07.2013 stood resurrected or had been kept pending, so as to require fresh consideration. +2 more

¶44

Court's answer

The contention that the petitioner's quarry lease application stands resurrected by the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2023 and had been kept pending is without merit.

¶47

Ratio / Principle

The order dated 09.07.2013 was communicated to the petitioner, as the rejoinder filed clearly states, and as is obvious from the fact that the petitioner preferred a Revision Petition assailing that order.

¶48

Key takeaways

The petitioner's Revision Petition was not rejected on the ground that it had become ineligible by virtue of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2016 (effective 12.08.2016), but on substantive grounds, namely that the subject land overlapped the applied area covered under Application No.1214 AML 2005 dated 05.11.2005.ratio¶49
Consequently, the contention that the petitioner's application continued to remain pending is erroneous.ratio¶49
There is no infirmity in the impugned endorsement dated 06.01.2024 rejecting the petitioner's request for consideration of its application that stood rejected on 09.07.2013.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-MM_S) No. 2023 of 2024 under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution by M/s Kadamba Associates (partnership firm through Managing Partner C H Maruthi Kumar) impugning (i) the endorsement dated 06.01.2024 bearing No.DMG/DDT/QLA104/2010-11/2023-24/5708 (Annexure-A) rejecting reconsideration of its quarry lease application, and (ii) the order dated 18.09.2018/29.09.2018 of Respondent No.4 rejecting Revision Petition No.3/2018-19. Background: application for steatite over 15 acres in Survey Nos.30 and 31, Shingenahalli Village, Tiptur Taluk, Tumakuru rejected on 09.07.2013 due to overlap with other applied areas; Revision Petition filed 26.05.2018 under Rule 53(4) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 after a delay of nearly four years ten months, and rejected on grounds of delay and overlap with Application No.1214 AML 2005 dated 05.11.2005; fresh request by letter dated 30.10.2023 refused by the endorsement for want of any provision under the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2023. Held (Oral Order per Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.M. Poonacha, coram Hon'ble Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru): the claim that Rule 8-B and the 2016/2023 amendments resurrected or kept the application pending has no merit, rejection having rested on the substantive overlap ground; the 09.07.2013 order stood communicated to the petitioner; and no infirmity attends the 06.01.2024 endorsement. Petition dismissed; no monetary quantum involved.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:48082-DB WP No. 2023 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 2023 OF 2024 (GM-MM_S)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

M/S. KADAMBA ASSOCIATES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI C H MARUTHI KUMAR, S/O LATE S HANUMANTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, BHARATH PETROLEUM BUNK, NEAR B H ROAD, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TOWN, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 104.

¶11

Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI

¶12

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

(BY MS. KUSUMA R PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. LAKAMAPURMATH CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRERTARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, (SSI, TEXTILES AND MINES) VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:48082-DB WP No. 2023 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

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

¶21

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, KHANIJA BHAVAN, SPOORTHI LAYOUT, BADDIHALLI RING ROAD, TUMKUR - 572 104.

¶22

THE JOINT DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, SOUTH ZONE, MYSORE - 570 016.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN PASSING OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06/01/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A FOR GRANT OF QUARRY LEASE IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AS PER CIRCULAR DATED 11/09/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-H, ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTIONS IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06/01/2024 BEARING NO.DMG/DDT/QLA104/2010-11/2023-24/5708 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER FOR GRANT OF QUARRY LEASE IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND ETC.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:48082-DB WP No. 2023 of 2024

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)

¶31

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning

¶32

an endorsement dated 06.01.2024, whereby the petitioner's request for considering its application for grant of quarry lease was rejected on the ground that there was no provision in the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession [Amendment] Rules, 2023 for considering the said application. The petitioner also impugns an order dated 29.09.2018, passed by the respondent No.4, whereby its Revision Petition [being Revision Petition No.3/2018-19] against an order dated 09.07.2013, rejecting petitioner's application for grant of quarry lease was rejected.

¶33

The petitioner had applied for a mining lease for mining the minor mineral, steatite, for a period of 10 years over land to an extent of 15 Acres falling in Survey Nos.30 and 31 of Shingenahalli Village, Tiptur Taluk, Tumakuru [ subject land ]. The said application was rejected by an order dated 09.07.2013, on the ground that the subject land was not free for grant of quarry lease as it was overlapping with the applied area of other applicants. The

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:48082-DB WP No. 2023 of 2024

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

petitioner being aggrieved by the same, filed a Revision Petition before respondent No.4. The said Revision Petition was filed on 26.05.2018 under Rule 53(4) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994. As is apparent, the said Revision Petition was filed after an inordinate delay of almost four years and ten months.

¶37

The said Revision Petition was rejected by the impugned order dated 18.09.2018 ( the said order is also dated 29.09.2018, which date is affixed by a rubber stamp) on two grounds. First that the Revision Petition had been filed after a delay of four years and ten months. Second, that the competent officer had furnished information to the effect that it overlaps Application No.1214 AML 2005 dated 05.11.2005 and therefore, the subject land was not available.

¶38

The petitioner did not take any immediate steps to assail the said order. After a lapse of almost five years, the petitioner sent a letter dated 30.10.2023, once again requesting for consideration of the application which was rejected on 09.07.2013. The petitioner sought to support the said application on the ground that the

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:48082-DB WP No. 2023 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

applications for grant of lease of land, which were overlapping with the subject land in the petitioner's application had since been withdrawn.

¶42

As noticed above, the said request was rejected in terms of the impugned endorsement dated 06.01.2024, on the ground that there was no provision under the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2023 for reconsidering the said application.

¶43

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in terms of Rule 8-B of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, all applications received for grant of lease prior to date of commencement of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2016 would become eligible, including in respect of minerals which were reclassified as minor minerals.

¶44

It is the petitioner's case that by virtue of the said amendment which came into force with effect from 17.03.2023, the petitioner's application for quarry lease stands resurrected. It is also contented that the said application had been kept pending. This contention is

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:48082-DB WP No. 2023 of 2024

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

premised on observations made by the Revisionary Authority. However, we find no merit in the aforesaid contention.

¶48

The petitioner also sought to contest the objection that the applications stood closed by virtue of an order dated 09.07.2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contented that the order dated 09.07.2013 was not communicated to the petitioner. However, the rejoinder filed clearly states that the said order was communicated. This is also obvious from the fact that the appellant had preferred a Revision Petition assailing the said order.

¶49

We also note that the petitioner's Revision Petition was not rejected on the ground that it had become ineligible by virtue of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2016 which came into effect from 12.08.2016 but on substantive grounds, namely, that the subject land was overlapping with the applied area covered under another application [1214 AML 2005 dated 05.11.2005]. Thus, the contention that the petitioner's application continued to remain pending is erroneous.

¶50

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:48082-DB WP No. 2023 of 2024

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

We find no infirmity with the impugned endorsement dated 06.01.2024, rejecting the petitioners request for consideration of its application that stood rejected on 09.07.2013.

¶54

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶55

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶56

BS/nd List No.: 2 Sl No.: 0

M/S. Kadamba Associates v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Kadamba Associates v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. M. Dinesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited Vs Ultratech Cement Limited

Subashchandra Modi Vs Sri Tushar Girinath

Sri.Renuka Enterprises Vs Karnataka State Pollution Control Board

Tanishqa Enterprises Vs Karnataka State Pollution Control Board

State of Karnataka Vs T Uma Shankar