Sri. T.G. Mallikarjuna Gouda, Vs State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 07/09/2021 OF THE WHICH PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-P TO THE PETITIONER AND ETC.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

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

¶31

Heard learned advocate Mr. K.N. Srinivasa for the petitioner

¶32

and learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar who appeared to assist the court upon service of copy of the petition in advance.

¶33

By invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for a direction against the respondents-authorities to consider his representation dated 07.09.2021. It is next prayed to direct respondent Nos.3 and 4,

¶34

who are the Director of Mines and Geology, Bengaluru and the Deputy Director, Hospet respectively, to execute the mining lease

¶35

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13968-DB WP No. 4906 of 2025

¶36

deed by granting quarry lease to the petitioner pursuant to the notification dated 31.01.2017 issued by the State Government.

¶37

The case of the petitioner, stated in nutshell, is that an application came to be filed by the petitioner for grant of quarry lease for building stone, which is a minor mineral, in the land bearing Survey No.418 to the extent of 8 Acres in Chikkakeriginahalli Village, Sandur Taluka, Bellary District. The chronology of events highlighted by the petitioner shows the journey of the application filed by him and the consideration thereof stage by stage.

¶38

3.1 The petitioner has been relying on the provisions of Rule 8(2) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 and the notification dated 30.12.2024 issued by the State Government which contemplates, in light of Rule 8(2), for consideration of the said application within 36 months. It appears that on 22.08.2024, the Senior Geologist, Department of Mines and Geology, Bellary, has sent a letter to the Director seeking approval for execution of lease deed under Rule 8-B of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2023. It is stated by the petitioner that on 09.10.2024, respondent No.3-the Director intimated respondent

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13968-DB WP No. 4906 of 2025

¶40

No.4-the Deputy Director to get the joint inspection report from the Deputy Commissioner, Bellary.

¶41

Learned advocate for the petitioner points out from the record that such inspection has already been taken place and the report dated 10.03.2015 is submitted along with its translated copy (Annexure-B).

¶42

4.1 From the said report, it was claimed by the petitioner that the report stands in his favour for its contents and that there is no impediment for granting the quarry lease and executing the lease deed.

¶43

While the aforesaid facts stand in the background, it is to be considered that the representation of the petitioner dated 07.09.2021 has remained pending and prayer is made in this petition to direct the respondents to consider the same. Until the representation is considered and appropriate decision in accordance with law is taken by the authorities regarding the claim of the petitioner to be granted the mining lease and for getting the lease deed executed, the second part of the prayer cannot be granted.

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13968-DB WP No. 4906 of 2025

¶45

5.1 In the aforesaid view, the only direction which the court can

¶46

grant in this petition is to direct the respondents to act through their competent authority to consider and decide the representation dated 07.09.2021 of the petitioner by taking into account all relevant aspects, both factual and legal, and take a decision in accordance with law and on merits. It is so directed, such decision shall be taken within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

¶47

It is clarified that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case of the petitioner. It is entirely for the competent authority to look into the merits and to consider whether the lease is liable to be granted to the petitioner.

¶48

With the above observations, the petition is disposed of.

¶49

Sd/(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶50

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶51

VBS

Sri. T.G. Mallikarjuna Gouda, v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. T.G. Mallikarjuna Gouda, v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Srinivas Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahendra Kumar Mitra Vs National Commission for Scheduled Castes

Narayanamurthy K v Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Gurusiddappa Bhimappa Gunjigavi Vs the State of Karnataka

Taurus Powertronics Private Limitd Vs M K Srinivasan

Sri.Ashok Mahaveer Bhadale Vs the State of Karnataka