Smt G L Vedavathi Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR APPROPRIATE ORDER BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED REJECTION ORDER DATED 15.12.2021 IN REVISION PETITION NO.39/2020-21, BEARING SL.NO.GA.BHU.E/JO.NI.MY/REVISION/2021-22/15651567, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.5, AS PER ANNEXURE-G AND CONSEQUENTLY, QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 14.12.2023, BEARING SL.NO.GA.BHU.E/U.NI.THU/KA.GA.GHU.A-24/4934, ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT, AS PER ANNEXURE-J, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY, ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5444-DB WP No. 7424 of 2024

¶26

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

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

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

¶29

What is sought to be called in question by the petitioner in

¶30

this writ petition is the order dated 15.12.2021 passed by the Revisional Authority in rejecting revision petition No.39/2020-21 filed against the order dated 28.01.2010 passed by the Competent Authority rejecting the application of the petitioner to permit her to hold the mining lease.

¶31

In other words, the application for mining quarry lease was rejected. Also prayed is to set aside the consequential order/endorsement dated 14.12.2023 passed by respondent No.4 in light of the rejection of the order at revision aforementioned.

¶32

2.1 The other limb of the prayer advanced is to direct respondent No.4-the Deputy Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Tumakuru, to consider the representation of the petitioner dated

¶33

04.10.2023 in light of the amendment to Rule 8-B of the Karnataka

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:5444-DB WP No. 7424 of 2024

¶36

Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 as amended in the year 2023.

¶37

Noticing the basic facts in brief, the application came to be made on 15.12.2008 by the petitioner for grant of quarry lease/licence for excavating building stone in the land bearing Survey No.16 situated at Kanthe Vaderahalli village, Koratagere Taluka, Tumakuru in the area to an extent of 3 acres and 20 guntas. It appears that the respondent issued the notification dated 22.07.2009 granting quarry lease in favour of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that she deposited the entire amount in January 2010. However, on 28.01.2010, the notification granting the quarry lease was rejected on the ground that the petitioner did not obtain sanction of the quarry lease within the stipulated time required.

¶38

3.1 The revisional application filed by the petitioner was not entertained as per the order of the Revisional Authority dated 08.12.2020. The ground weighed with the Revisional Authority was that the revision application was filed in respect of the order dated 28.01.2010 after a delay of ten years and ten months and that no plausible grounds or reasons were supplied to explain such

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5444-DB WP No. 7424 of 2024

¶40

inordinate delay. Accordingly, the revisional application came to be dismissed.

¶41

Learned advocate Mr. Ganapathy Bhat for the petitioner harped that the order dated 28.01.2010 cancelling the notification was never served on the petitioner. Therefore, in the absence of service, she had no knowledge which led to passage of time in challenging the same before the Revisional Authority. It was submitted that when the petitioner had no knowledge and she was not served with the said order, the aspect of delay cannot operate and it pales into insignificance.

¶42

4.1 In the statement of objections dated 05.02.2025 filed by the respondent-State, it was inter alia contended that since the time limit stipulated in Rule 30(1) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 was not observed by the petitioner, as per the note mentioned in the notification dated 22.07.2009, respondent No.4-Authority was constrained to pass the order dated 28.01.2010 cancelling the notification dated 22.07.2009. It is the stand taken that the said order dated 28.01.2010 was despatched by post to the petitioner from the office of respondent No.4-the Deputy Director. However, the said letter containing the order

¶43

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5444-DB WP No. 7424 of 2024

¶44

dated 28.01.2010 returned unserved with the endorsement

¶45

"insufficient address".

¶46

4.2 Learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar submitted on the basis of the above facts stated in the statement of objections that it was the petitioner who was at fault by supplying insufficient address and that the order dated 28.01.2010 was duly despatched by the Authority. It was therefore submitted that it was not the lapse on part of the Authority, but it was due to the mistake of the petitioner in supplying insufficient address that the post returned unserved. It was submitted by her that in any case the delay of more than ten years in approaching the Revisional Authority was inordinate.

¶47

Irrespective of the aspect whether the address supplied to and available with the authority was sufficient or not and that whether the petitioner had no knowledge as sought to be claimed by the petitioner, about the order dated 28.01.2010, the aspect states on the face of it that the revisional application was filed by the petitioner after a gap of ten years and ten months. The time of ten years and ten months is too long a time to be in any case in the

¶48

7 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:5444-DB WP No. 7424 of 2024

¶50

absence of any plausible explanation for a litigant to litigate for his

¶51

rights. No person would sit tight for such a long period.

¶52

5.1 The delay of ten years and ten months, could not be countenanced even if the rival stand about the service of the order dated 28.01.2010 is ignored. The delay of ten years would operate independently to disentitle the petitioner to any relief. The reasoning supplied by the Revisional Authority in rejecting the revision petition could hardly be faulted.

¶53

5.2 Learned advocate for the petitioner tried in vain to rely on Rule 27 read with Rule 30 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 to submit that once the notification approving the quarry lease was received on 22.07.2009, it was the duty of the authorities to see that rest of the formalities are completed.

¶54

5.2.1 The above submission falls flat once the provision of Rule 30 is noticed. Rule 30 deals with the execution of lease deed to say that under sub-rule (1) when a quarry lease is granted or renewed under Rule 27, a lease deed shall be got executed by the grantee in the form prescribed. Therefore, it is for the grantee to

¶55

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5444-DB WP No. 7424 of 2024

¶56

take necessary steps within six months to get the lease deed executed. The onus lies on the grantee to complete the said formality. On this score also, the case of the petitioner has no merits.

¶57

5.3 As far as the second prayer, it could not be considered when the application of the petitioner for quarry lease itself is no more pending.

¶58