Dismissed¶62

N Mahammed Salim Pasha v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Jul 2026WP/18770/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quarry lease renewal; building stone; HPT No.483; Sy.No.59 Hanasi village; Haragibommanahalli Taluk; Vijayanagara District; Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1994; Rule 53(1) revision; limitation 90 days plus 30 days condonation; Rule 39 forfeiture notice; security deposit; KSEIAA environmental clearance; demand letter 02.12.2020; arrears Rs. 2,52,284; delay of three years eleven months fourteen days; ignorance of law no excuse; certiorari under Articles 226 and 227; writ petition dismissed on 15.07.2026 by Vibhu Bakhru CJ and K.S. Hemalekha J.

What did the court decide?

It was undisputed that the rejection letter was duly communicated to the petitioner and that there was an inordinate delay in filing the revision petition. ¶58

N Mahammed Salim Pasha Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶62

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 25.07.2025 rejecting the petitioner's revision petition under Rule 53(1) of the KMMC Rules, 1994 as time-barred (delay of three years, eleven months and fourteen days) called for interference. +2 more

¶45

Court's answer

It was undisputed that the rejection letter was duly communicated to the petitioner and that there was an inordinate delay in filing the revision petition.

¶58

Ratio / Principle

The stipulated time for filing a revision petition under the KMMC Rules is 90 days from the date of the order under review, and the revisional authority is empowered, in certain cases, to condone a delay of up to 30 days if sufficient cause is shown; the petitioner's revision petition filed after a delay of three years, eleven months and fourteen days was therefore beyond the period of limitation.

¶57

Key takeaways

The contention that no notice of forfeiture under Rule 39 had been issued failed: there was no averment on record refuting the finding that the demand letter dated 02.12.2020 had been communicated, and no denial that the petitioner failed to secure the environmental clearance certificate from KSEIAA.ratio¶56
The explanation of severe financial hardship for the delay was unpersuasive, as there was no material to establish any financial hardship or to show how it prevented the petitioner from filing the revision petition.ratio¶62
Ignorance of the period of limitation is not an excuse.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench (Vibhu Bakhru, CJ and K.S. Hemalekha, J) dismissed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 25.07.2025 of respondent No.5 (Additional Director and Revisional Authority) in Revision Application No.02/2025-26, whereby the petitioner's revision petition under Rule 53(1) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 was rejected as time-barred. The revision petition assailed the order dated 24.03.2021 refusing renewal of quarry lease HPT No.483 (Sy.No.59, Hanasi village, Haragibommanahalli Taluk, Ballari District, presently Vijayanagara District), which had expired on 09.05.2016. Held: (i) the revision petition had to be filed within 90 days of the order under review, extendable by only 30 days on sufficient cause; the delay of three years, eleven months and fourteen days was fatal; (ii) the plea that the security deposit was forfeited without notice under Rule 39 KMMC Rules failed, as communication of the demand letter dated 02.12.2020 (arrears of Rs. 2,52,284) stood unrefuted and the failure to obtain the KSEIAA environmental clearance was undenied; (iii) financial hardship was unsubstantiated and ignorance of law is no excuse; given the limited scope of judicial review, no interference was warranted.

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

NC: 2026:KHC:35995-DB WP No. 18770 of 2026

¶4

CNR: KAHC010407742026

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶9

AND

¶10

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 18770 OF 2026 (GM-MM-S)

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

N MAHAMMED SALIM PASHA S/O ABBASALI NIAZI AGE: 45 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS R/O 12^TH WARD, CHITWADGI HOSPET - 583 211 TQ: HOSPET DIST: VIJAYANAGARA

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

Digitally signed by VEERENDRA KUMAR K M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

(BY MS. SAFRINA BEGUM, ADVOCATE FOR SRI PRUTHVI K.S., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA RPTD. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY DEPT. OF MINES AND GEOLOGY VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001

¶18

THE DIRECTOR DEPT. OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN

¶19

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:35995-DB WP No. 18770 of 2026

¶22

CNR: KAHC010407742026

¶23

RACECOURSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001

¶24

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPT. OF MINES AND GEOLOGY HOSAPETE - 583 201 TQ: HOSAPETE DIST: VIJAYANAGARA

¶25

THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPT. OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN, 7^TH WARD M.P. PRAKASH NAGAR HOSAPETE - 583 201 TQ: HOSAPETE DIST: VIJAYANAGARA

¶26

THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR AND REVISIONAL AUTHORITY SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPT. OF MINES AND GEOLOGY NORTH ZONE, BALLARI - 583 101 TQ AND DIST: BALLARI

¶27

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25/07/2025 BEARING NO.Ga.Bhoo.Ee.HeNiBaOo. Va.Parishkarana-02:2025-26/1158 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.5 IN REVISION APPLICATION NO.02/2025-26 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:35995-DB WP No. 18770 of 2026

¶33

CNR: KAHC010407742026

¶34

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

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

¶37

The learned Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents.

¶38

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition impugning an order dated 25.07.2025 passed by the respondent No.5 in Revision Application No.2/2025-26.

¶39

The petitioner was granted a quarry lease over land measuring 7-00 acres, falling in Sy.No.59 of Hanasi village, Haragibommanahalli Taluk, Ballari District (presently Vijayanagara District), for extracting building stone. A quarrying lease bearing HPT No.483 was executed in favour of the petitioner for a term of five (5) years, with effect from 09.05.2011. The said term expired on 09.05.2016. However, prior to expiry, the petitioner filed a renewal application on 06.02.2016 seeking an extension of the quarry lease for a period of ten (10) years. The petitioner also furnished a quarry plan dated 16.02.2026, which was approved on

¶40

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:35995-DB WP No. 18770 of 2026

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

CNR: KAHC010407742026

¶43

19.02.2026. Accordingly, respondent No.4 requested the

¶44

concerned Tahsildar and the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Ballari District, to furnish no-objection certificates [ NOCs ] from the revenue and forest departments. However, the NOCs were not received. The petitioner was also required to obtain an environmental clearance certificate [ ECC ] from the Karnataka State Environment Impact Assessment Authority [ KSEIAA ]. However, it is stated that the petitioner failed to do so. The annual audit for the year 2019-20 indicated that a sum of `2,52,284/- was outstanding as at the end of the year 2019-20. Accordingly, a demand letter dated 02.12.2020 was issued to the petitioner. However, it is alleged that the petitioner failed to satisfy the said demand. In view of the above, the petitioner's application for renewal of the quarry lease was rejected by an order dated 24.03.2021.

¶45

The petitioner filed a revision petition under Rule 53(1) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 [ KMMC Rules ], which was rejected by the impugned order dated 25.07.2025, inter alia , on the ground that the said revision petition had been filed after a delay of three years, eleven months and fourteen days, and thus was beyond the period of limitation.

¶46

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:35995-DB WP No. 18770 of 2026

¶49

CNR: KAHC010407742026

¶50

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the principal ground for rejecting the petitioner's application for renewal is unsustainable. She submits that under Rule 39 of the KMMC Rules, the concerned authorities were required to issue a notice before forfeiting the security deposit. She submits that in the present case the security deposit has been forfeited and adjusted towards the outstanding demand without issuing a notice under Rule 39 of the KMMC Rules. So far as the delay is concerned, she submits that the petitioner was undergoing severe financial hardship and was unaware of the requirement to file the revision petition within the stipulated period of ninety days.

¶51

She also earnestly contended that the application for renewal had been filed on 06.02.2016 and had been rejected more than five years later, and thus there has been a significant delay in processing the petitioner's application for renewal. Thus, the impugned order was liable to be set aside.

¶52

The contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner are unmerited. There is no dispute that the petitioner received the demand for payment of the outstanding amount, communicated by

¶53

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:35995-DB WP No. 18770 of 2026

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

CNR: KAHC010407742026

¶56

a letter dated 02.12.2020. Although it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that no notice of forfeiture under Rule 39 had been issued, there is no averment on record which refutes the finding that a demand letter dated 02.12.2020 had been communicated. Reference to the said demand letter is also found in the order rejecting the petitioner's application for renewal of the quarry lease. There is also no denial that the petitioner failed to secure the environmental clearance certificate from KSEIAA.

¶57

The present writ petition has been filed impugning the order dated 25.07.2025, rejecting the petitioner's revision petition filed under Rule 53 of the KMMC Rules. As noted above, the revision petition was rejected on the ground of delay. There is no dispute that the stipulated time for filing the revision petition is 90 days from the date of the order under review, and in certain cases, the revisional authority is empowered to condone a delay of 30 days, if a sufficient cause is shown.

¶58

Concededly, the rejection letter was duly communicated to the petitioner, and there is an inordinate delay in filing the revision petition. The only explanation provided by the petitioner for this

¶59

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:35995-DB WP No. 18770 of 2026

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

CNR: KAHC010407742026

¶62

delay is that the petitioner was suffering from financial hardship and was unaware of the period of limitation. None of these grounds are persuasive. There is no material to establish any financial hardship or to show how it prevented the petitioner from filing a revision petition. Further, it is well settled that ignorance of law is not an excuse. Given the limited scope of judicial review in these proceedings, we are unable to accept that any interference is warranted in the impugned order. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶63

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶64

Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

¶65

KMV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 10

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 25.07.2025 bearing No.Ga.Bhoo.Ee.HeNiBaOo. Va.Parishkarana-02:2025-26/1158 issued by respondent No.5 (Additional Director and Revisional Authority) in Revision Application No.02/2025-26, rejecting the petitioner's revision petition under Rule 53(1) of the KMMC Rules, 1994 as barred by limitation (delay of three years, eleven months and fourteen days).¶38
Respondent No.5 - Additional Director and Revisional Authority, Dept. of Mines and Geology, North Zone, Ballari · 25.07.2025
Prior proceeding
Grant of quarry lease for extracting building stone over 7-00 acres in Sy.No.59 of Hanasi village, Haragibommanahalli Taluk, Ballari District (presently Vijayanagara District).¶39
Prior proceeding
Execution of quarrying lease HPT No.483 for a term of five years with effect from 09.05.2011; the term expired on 09.05.2016.¶39
Prior proceeding
Renewal application filed on 06.02.2016, prior to expiry, seeking extension of the quarry lease for ten years.¶39
Prior proceeding
Petitioner furnished a quarry plan dated 16.02.2026, which was approved on 19.02.2026.¶39
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.4 requested the concerned Tahsildar and the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Ballari District, to furnish no-objection certificates (NOCs) from the revenue and forest departments.¶44
Prior proceeding
The NOCs from the revenue and forest departments were not received.¶44
Prior proceeding
Petitioner was required to obtain an environmental clearance certificate (ECC) from the Karnataka State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (KSEIAA).¶44
Prior proceeding
Petitioner failed to obtain the environmental clearance certificate from KSEIAA.¶44
Prior proceeding
Annual audit for 2019-20 indicated Rs. 2,52,284/- outstanding as at the end of that year.¶44
Prior proceeding
Demand letter dated 02.12.2020 issued to the petitioner for the outstanding amount.¶44
Prior proceeding
Petitioner allegedly failed to satisfy the demand raised by the demand letter dated 02.12.2020.¶44
Prior proceeding
Rejection of the petitioner's renewal application by order dated 24.03.2021.¶44
Prior proceeding
Revision petition under Rule 53(1) of the KMMC Rules, 1994 filed after a delay of three years, eleven months and fourteen days; rejected by the impugned order dated 25.07.2025 as beyond the period of limitation.¶45

N Mahammed Salim Pasha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N Mahammed Salim Pasha v. the 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

Krishna Murthy Constructions Vs Perfect Electricals

Yashas H P Vs State of Karnataka

Sri C Arasoji Rao Vs the Bangalore District Maintenance and

Smt Muniyamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Mr Abdul Aleem Vs State of Karnataka

State of Karnataka, Vs Sri. Bharath Jayarama