Dismissed¶50

Sri R M Mahadevappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Jul 2026WP/37191/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Bengaluru), 20-07-2026 (Bakhru CJ authoring, with Hemalekha J) dismisses a belated Articles 226/227 writ petition seeking mandamus to act on a representation dated 25.03.2024 and to renew quarry lease QL No.18 over Survey No.128, Arepura Village, Gundlupet Taluk, Chamarajanagara (granted 06.01.2000, expired 05.01.2005). Grounds: lease long expired, no provisions for renewal of the licence at this stage, petition highly belated (filed nearly two decades later), bereft of particulars. Keywords: quarry licence renewal; mines and geology; District Task Force - crusher units; Chamarajanagar; Gundlupet; mandamus; laches/belated petition.

What did the court decide?

As disclosed by the petition's own facts, the quarry lease has long since expired and there are no provisions for renewal of the licence at this stage. ¶50

Sri R M Mahadevappa Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus/direction should be issued directing respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to act upon the petitioner's representations vide Annexure-C dated 25.03.2024 and to renew the quarry licence vide Annexure-A dated 06.01.2000. +1 more

¶41

Ratio / Principle

As disclosed by the petition's own facts, the quarry lease has long since expired and there are no provisions for renewal of the licence at this stage.

¶50

Key takeaways

The present petition is highly belated and it is not apposite to entertain it; accordingly, no relief can be granted and the petition is dismissed.ratio¶50
The petition is bereft of any particulars as to what happened to the quarrying activities after the lease had expired (supporting observation in reaching the dismissal, though the operative grounds were expiry and belatedness).obiter¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WP No. 37191 of 2025 (GM-MM-S), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, oral order dated 20-07-2026 authored by Vibhu Bakhru, Chief Justice, with K.S. Hemalekha, Judge, on the bench. Filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner R.M. Mahadevappa sought a writ of mandamus/direction directing respondents (State of Karnataka through the Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology; the Deputy Commissioner/Chairman, District Task Force - Authority for Regulation and Licensing of Crusher Units; and the Deputy Director/Senior Geologist) to act on his representation dated 25.03.2024 (Annexure-C) and to renew the quarry licence vide Annexure-A dated 06.01.2000. Per the petition, his brother Linganna had obtained quarry lease QL No.18 over 1 acre in Survey No.128 of Arepura Village, Begur Hobli, Gundlupet Taluk, Chamarajanagara District, granted on 06.01.2000 for five years, expiring on 05.01.2005; a family partition deed dated 19.02.2003 brought the land to the petitioner's share. The court observed that the petition was bereft of particulars as to post-expiry quarrying activities, that copies of the alleged earlier representations were not enclosed, and that the lease concededly stood unrenewed. Finding that the lease had long since expired with no provisions for renewal of the licence at this stage, and that the petition filed nearly two decades after expiry was highly belated, the court declined to entertain it, granted no relief, and dismissed the petition.

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

NC: 2026:KHC:37188-DB WP No. 37191 of 2025

¶4

CNR: KAHC010808422025

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 20^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. 37191 OF 2025 (GM-MM-S)

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

SRI R.M. MAHADEVAPPA S/O LATE MADAPPA

¶13

AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT RANGUPURA VILLAGE HOREYALA POST, BEGUR HOBLI GUNDLUPET TALUK - 571 109 CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

(BY SRI H.V. BHANU PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

Digitally signed by K P SWETHA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶18

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY VIDHANA SOUDHA

¶19

BENGALURU - 560 001

¶20

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND CHAIRMAN DISTRICT TASK FORCE

¶21

AUTHORITY FOR REGULATION AND LICENSING OF CRUSHER UNITS

¶22

CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRCIT - 571 313

¶23

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

NC: 2026:KHC:37188-DB WP No. 37191 of 2025

¶26

CNR: KAHC010808422025

¶27

DEPUTY DIRECTOR / SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY CHAMRAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571 313

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY MS. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA)

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY APPROPRIATE DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 TO ACT UPON THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY THE PETITIONER AND TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION OR ANY SUCH APPROPRIATE STRINGENT STEPS UNDER THE REPRESENTATIONS VIDE ANNEXURE-C DATED 25/03/2024 & ETC.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

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

¶35

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia , praying as under:

¶36

"(i) Issue writ of mandamus or any appropriate direction directing the respondents No.1 to 3 to act upon the representations made by the petitioner and to take appropriate action or any such appropriate stringent steps under the representations vide Annexure-C dated 25.03.2024;

¶37

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:37188-DB WP No. 37191 of 2025

¶40

CNR: KAHC010808422025

¶41

(ii) Issue writ of direction or writ of mandamus, directing respondents No.1 to 3 to act upon the representations made by the petitioner and to take appropriate action to renewal the quarry license vide Annexure-A dated 06.01.2000;

¶42

(iii) Pass any other writ or direction which may be deemed fit to grant under the above facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶43

It is the petitioner's case that his brother Linganna had applied for a quarry lease over an area measuring 1 acre in Survey No.128 of Arepura Village, Begur Hobli, Gundlupet Taluk, Chamarajanagara District. It is stated that the said quarry lease QL No.18 was granted on 06.01.2000 for a period of five years and the same expired on 05.01.2005. The petitioner claims that prior to the said period, the family members had entered into a partition deed dated 19.02.2003, whereby lands in Survey No.128 had fallen to his share.

¶44

The petition is bereft of any particulars as to what happened to the quarrying activities after the lease had expired.

¶45

The petitioner claims that after the partition was effected in the year 19.02.2003, he made several representations. However,

¶46

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:37188-DB WP No. 37191 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

CNR: KAHC010808422025

¶49

the petitioner has not enclosed any copies of those representations. Concededly, the lease is not renewed. The petitioner after nearly two decades made a representation dated 25.03.2024 to the Deputy Director claiming that the lease had expired on 05.01.2005 and requesting that the lease be renewed. The petitioner has filed the present petition aggrieved on account of his representation not being considered.

¶50

The facts as disclosed in the present petition indicate that the quarry lease has long since expired and there are no provisions for renewal of the licence at this stage. The present petition is highly belated. We do not consider it apposite to entertain the same. In view of the above, no relief can be granted and the petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶51

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶52

Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

¶53

KPS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Sri R M Mahadevappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri R M Mahadevappa 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

M N Sathish Vs the State of Karnataka

Chandra Naika Vs Leelavathi

Smt Padma @ Padmavathi B Vs Smt Ramakka

Smt. K. Jalaja Vs Smt. Rathnamma

Sri Jayaramu M H Vs the Project Director

Subramanyam v R Vs Anushree a