Sri. S Ravi Vs State of Karnataka

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES (MSME AND MINES) VIKASA SOUDHA DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001

¶17

THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJABHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:40091-DB WP No. 29996 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, APPAJI LAYOUT, KOTTHIPURA VILLAGE, NEAR VADERAHALLI RAILWAY GATE, RAMANAGAR - 562 127

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. K.S. HARISH, G.A.)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 8/04/2024 PASSED BY THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, BANGALORE, BEARING NO.GA.BU.EE/VOONI (KHA.AA) / RMN/KA.GA.GU-AA-28/2011-2023-24/225-227, REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER FOR GRANT OF QUARRYING LEASE FOR QUARRYING ORNAMENTAL STONE AS BEING ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL, AND IN CONTRAVENTION OF PROVISO TO RULE 15-A OF THE KARNATAKA MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES, 1994. THE ORDER IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and

¶27

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶30

The petitioner has filed the present petition inter alia impugning the order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the Director, Department of Mines & Geology, Bengaluru, whereby the petitioner's application for grant of quarrying lease for quarrying

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:40091-DB WP No. 29996 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Multi Colour Granite (Minor Mineral) was rejected. The petitioner made an application dated 07.02.2011 for grant of quarry lease for quarrying multi colour granite which is classified as specified Minor Mineral under Rule 9(1) of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 [hereafter referred to as 'KMMC Rules]. The petitioner states that thereafter, Joint Spot Inspection was conducted over an area measuring 1.20 acres in Sy.No.60 of Hanakadabur Village, Kanakapur Taluk, Ramanagar District [subject land].

¶34

The said Joint Spot Inspection of the subject land was conducted on 04.03.2011 by the Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagar Sub-Division and Deputy Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Ramanagar. Thereafter, on 22.02.2012, No Objection Certificate was issued by Deputy Conservator of Forest, Ramangar Division, Ramanagar. The petitioner states thereafter on 07.06.2013, Secretary of Commerce and Industries Department had also recommended grant of quarry lease in favour of the petitioner. However, the petitioner's application came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 08.04.2024 on the ground that the subject land is less than two acres and quarry lease over an area, which is less than two acres, is not permissible.

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:40091-DB WP No. 29996 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

It is the petitioner's case that impugned order is erroneous as it disregards the proviso to Rule 15A(1) of the KMMC Rules. It is relevant to refer to Rule 15-A of the KMMC Rules, which is set out below:

¶39

[15-A. Minimum area for Quarrying Lease or Licence or Composite Licence to be granted . - (1) No quarry lease or license or Composite license shall be granted with the extent less than the minimum extent specified in Schedule II-A for concerned mineral:

¶40

Provided that the State Government may, if it is satisfied on the basis of proposed production level, Geological or topographical conditions and for the reasons to be recorded in writing, grant a lease over an area less than minimum extent specified in Schedule IIA. However, the implementation of Environmental Management Plan in such cases shall be in cluster approach.

¶41

(2) Nothing in this rule shall apply for the existing quarry leases till the date of its expiry.]

¶42

In terms of sub Rule (1) of Rule 15-A of KMMC Rules, no quarry lease or licence or composite license shall be granted with the extent less than the minimum extent specified in Schedule II-A

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:40091-DB WP No. 29996 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

of concerned mineral. Sl.No.1 of Schedule II-A prescribes the minimum area of 02 acres for ornamental and decorative building stones as defined under clause (m) of Rule 2(1). The ornamental granite stones falls under the said definition and therefore, the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's application for grant of quarry lease to the extent of 1.20 acres, cannot be faulted.

¶46

Insofar as proviso to Rule 15-A(1) of the KMMC Rules is concerned, the same provides for an exception in certain circumstances in which quarrying lease for an area less than specified in Schedule II-A of KMMC Rules, is permissible. The exception under the proviso is applicable provided, the following conditions are satisfied:

¶47

a) The concerned authority is satisfied on the basis of proposed production level, Geological or for topographical conditions that an area less than specified in Schedule II-A, ought to be granted;

¶48

b) That the said area falls under cluster approach;

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:40091-DB WP No. 29996 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

c) Additional grant of lease to the extent less than the area as provided in schedule II-A is also subject to implementation of common Environmental Management Plan ;

¶52

d) Additionally, the reasons for granting exception are recorded in writing.

¶53

In the present case, there is no material to accept that the case of the petitioner falls under the exceptions as provided under proviso to Rule 15-A(1) of KMMC Rules. There is no material forthcoming to accept that the area falls under cluster approach or under a common Environmental Management Plan.

¶54

In view of the above, we find no merit in the present petition. The same is accordingly, dismissed.

¶55

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶56

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶57

BS

¶58

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Sri. S Ravi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. S Ravi v. 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

Miss Navya P Acharya Vs Mr. Rayappa

Sri Mallappa Chayappa Aksharad Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Ranjith D Vs Shri Vadyappa Gowda Ermail

Sri Lokesha B Vs the State of Karnataka

The Bengaluru City Co. Operative Bank Vs Mr. Bharath M M

Chakingal Prasad Nair Vs Mr Kiran v