A Manjunath Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

A Manjunath Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's quarry lease application is entertainable under Article 226 despite the availability of the alternative statutory remedy of revision under Rule 53 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 before the State Government, the impugned order having been passed by the Director, Department of Mines and Geology. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the order impugned was passed by the Director, Department of Mines and Geology, the petitioner had an adequate alternative remedy of revision under Rule 53 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 by filing a revision application before the State Government; in view of this alternative statutory remedy, the Court was disinclined to entertain the petition by invoking its extraordinary discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Ratio / Principle

Rule 53 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 contemplates that any person aggrieved by the order of the competent authority above the rank of Additional Director may file a revision application before the State Government within the stipulated time of 60 days.

Key takeaways

Relegating the petitioner to the remedy of revision under Rule 53, and noting that private respondent No.5 who suffered the same order has already filed such a revision, the petition was not entertained and stands disposed of without going into the merits of the case of either side.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quarry lease - rejection by Director, Department of Mines and Geology of application for extraction of mineral and ornamental grey granite in Sy.No.4, Gummalapura Village, Chikkaballapur District (order dated 15.10.2022) - writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 seeking certiorari against Annexure-A - alternative statutory remedy of revision before the State Government available under Rule 53 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, which contemplates revision against orders of a competent authority above the rank of Additional Director within 60 days - private respondent No.5, served by the same order, had already preferred such revision - held, petition not entertainable; petitioner relegated to the Rule 53 revision remedy; petition disposed of without examining the merits of either side. Oral judgment delivered by Hon'ble the Chief Justice N. V. Anjaria; Division Bench comprising the Chief Justice and Justice M. I. Arun (Neutral citation: NC: 2025:KHC:781-DB).

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:781-DB WP No. 25628 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

PRESENT

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

AND

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 25628 OF 2023 (GM-MM_S)

BETWEEN:

A MANJUNATH

S/O A V AKKALAREDDY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O ADAGALLU VILLAGE MANDIKALLU POST-562 104

CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK & DISTRICT

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SHIVA KUMAR K.B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY(MSME & MINES) COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY CHAIRMAN, RULE 11 COMMITTEE COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:781-DB WP No. 25628 of 2023

NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.

THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY CHIKKABALLAPURA-562 101.

P KEMPANNA S/O PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/O PATHUR MANDIKALLU HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPURA-562 101.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. K.S.HARISH, GA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. PRAKASH B.S., ADVOCATE FOR R5)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING ANNEXURE-A IN No.GaBhuE/UNi(Kha.Aa)/KaGaGu/KaGaGuAaSa-380/2012/202223 DATD 28.10.2022 IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED, PASSED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT, IN THE INTEREST OF EQUITY AND JUSTICE AND ETC.

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

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:781-DB WP No. 25628 of 2023

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

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

The challenge in this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 15.10.2022 whereby, the petitioner's application for grant of quarry lease in Sy.No.4 of Gummalapura Village, Chikkaballapur District for extraction of mineral and ornamental grey granite, was rejected. Along with the application of the petitioner, the other application filed by the private respondent herein for similar purpose was also rejected. It was for regular building stone.

The two aspects of the matter which persuade the Court not to entertain the petition are, firstly, the petitioner has a remedy under Rule 53 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short 'the Rule') by filing revision application before the State Government since the aforementioned order impugned in this petition is passed by the Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Rule 53 of the Rule contemplates that any

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:781-DB WP No. 25628 of 2023

person aggrieved by the order of the competent authority above the rank of Additional Director may file the revision within the stipulated time of 60 days.

In view of the alternative statutory remedy available, this Court is disinclined to entertain the petition by invoking extraordinary discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The second material aspect is that private respondent No.5 herein who suffered the same order sailing with the petitioner herein, has already filed a revision application under Rule 53 of the aforesaid Rules.

In that view, relegating the petitioner to the said remedy of revision and without going into the merits of the case of either side, the petition is not entertained and disposed of.

SD/(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE

SD/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21