Sri Vijaybharat Bhojappa Ballari Vs the Secretary to Government

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT / OFFICE ORDER NO.GaABhuEe/HiBhuHa/KaGaGu/2016-17/2504 DATED 17.02.2017 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT No.3 AS BEING ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS AND CONTRARY TO LAW, EQUITY AND JUSTICE (ANNEXURE-B), ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:10911-DB WP No. 3059 of 2025

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

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

¶32

Heard learned advocate Mr. Shivalli Shivayogi Yallappagouda for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar for the respondent-State and its authorities who appeared upon service of copy of the petition in advance.

¶33

The challenge in this petition is directed against the order dated 26.04.2014 passed by respondent No.4-the Revisional Authority in Revision Petition No.30 of 2023-24 rejecting the revision application and in turn, confirming the endorsement/order dated 17.02.2017 passed by respondent No.3-the Senior Geologist.

¶34

2.1. By the said order dated 17.02.2017, the application of the etitioner made in the year 2013 for grant of quarry lease for extracting ordinary building stone in part of the land bearing Sy.No.73 admeasuring 1 Acre which is stated to be government land at Kajjari Village, Ranebennur Taluka, Haveri District, came to be rejected.

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:10911-DB WP No. 3059 of 2025

¶37

3. While rejecting the application, Competent Authority noted

¶38

that in view of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 more particularly, amended Rule 8(5) of the said Rules, the lease for minor mineral building stone will have to be granted by conducting tender-cum-auction process. It was recorded that the application of the petitioner became ineligible in view of Rule 8-B(1) of the said Rules and therefore was liable to be rejected.

¶39

Against the said order dated 17.2.2017, the revision application was filed by the petitioner which was delayed by 6 years and 3 months. The revision was filed under Rule 53 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994.

¶40

4.1. Rule 53 reads as under,

¶41

"53. Revision.- (1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Competent Authority not above the rank of Additional Director may, within sixty days of the date of communication of such order apply in Form-RV to the Controlling Authority for revision of such order.

¶42

(2) Any person aggrieved by an order of the competent authority above the rank of Additional Director may, within sixty days from the date of communication of such order apply in Form-RV to the State Government for revision of such order:

¶43

Provided that the Controlling Authority or the State Government, as the case may be, may, if he or it is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not making the application in-time, entertain such

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10911-DB WP No. 3059 of 2025

¶45

application if it is made within a period of thirty days from the date of expiry of the aforesaid period of sixty days.

¶46

(2-A) Any person aggrieved by the order of the competent authority or approving authority rejecting any offer or bid under Rule 31-H may within sixty days from the date of such order apply in Form RV to the State Government for revision of such order.

(2-B) …

(3) …

(4) …

(5) …

(6) …"

4.2. Thus, the Rule making authority provided period of 90 days

¶53

from the date of communication of the order to be subjected to revisional proceedings. As per the proviso, if the applicant is able to show sufficient cause for not making the application within the said 90 days, further grace period of 30 days is available from the date of expiry of the said period.

¶54

5. While dismissing the revisional application on the ground that

¶55

it was beyond the limitation, the revisional authority observed that the revision petition was highly belated and therefore was not maintainable.

¶56

5.1. In addition to the said aspect, it was noted by the Revisional

¶57

Authority that as per Rule 15-A(1) of the said Rules, no quarry

¶58

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10911-DB WP No. 3059 of 2025

¶59

lease or licence shall be granted with the extent less than the minimum as provided in Schedule II-A of the Rules and that, such extent in respect of the instant mineral is 2 Acres implying thereby that if the application is made for a land comprising less than 2 Acres, it is not liable to be considered.

¶60

5.2. In addition to the above aspect, the further aspect considered by the Revisional Authority is that the proposed stone quarry area is coming within 10 kilometers of the Eco Sensitive Zone of Ranebennur, Krishnamruga.

¶61

5.3. While the observations are made by the Revisional Authority in the aforesaid aspects also, what is waived by the revisional authority is the delay of six years and three months which rendered the revisional application incompetent in law.

¶62

Learned advocate for the petitioner argued in vain that the petitioner-applicant was not aware of passing of the order dated 17.2.2017 and that, he was not communicated with the said order. This ground is coming for the first time in the course of hearing of the petition and when the memorandum of revisional application is seen which is part of the record of the writ petition, not a whisper is

¶63

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10911-DB WP No. 3059 of 2025

¶64

made about the delay aspect. It was never the case of the petitioner that he was not communicated with the said order.

¶65

In any view, the court is not inclined to entertain the petition for the reasons recorded above. The petition is dismissed as meritless.

¶66

At this stage, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that Rule 8-B, as amended in the year 2023 , would come to the rescue of the petitioner. This aspect is outside and beyond the scope of controversy in this petition. Notwithstanding the rejection of this petition, it is open for the petitioner to approach the Competent Authority seeking the benefit of Rule 8-B, if available in law and in the facts of the case, the Competent Authority shall consider such request, if made entirely on merits and in accordance with law.

¶67

SD/-

¶68

(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶69

SD/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶70

VMB

¶71

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Sri Vijaybharat Bhojappa Ballari v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Vijaybharat Bhojappa Ballari v. the Secretary to Government

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

Canara Bank Vs Sri M.H. Ron

Smt. Munithayamma Vs Rajeev

Lababeen Sunnath Jamath Mosque Vs Karnataka State Board of Auqaf

K.C.Medappa Vs Venkataraju

M/S Dilip Buildcon Limited, Vs the State of Karnataka

Shani Theresa Wallis Vs Mr. Jain Avneesh (Alias Avneesh Jain)