Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), DB Oral Order dated 08 June 2026 (per Vibhu Bakhru, CJ; bench incl. K.S. Hemalekha), disposing of W.P. No. 9653 of 2026 (GM-MM-S) filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner challenged the scrutiny proceedings/endorsement dated 02.01.2026 of respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 declaring him ineligible for sand blocks at Nooji Balthila, Perabe and Ilanthila villages (Dakshina Kannada), notified for sand quarry lease by e-tender dated 06.11.2025, on the ground that he was not a resident of the concerned taluk, while declaring respondent No. 8 eligible. Under Rule 31-ZB(1) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, sand blocks in IV, V and higher order streams in Non-CRZ areas of the coastal districts (Uttara Kannada, Dakshina Kannada, Udupi) are allotted by tender-cum-auction amongst traditional sand extracting communities subject to conditions including one-year taluk residency certified by the Tahsildar, one-year manual sand extraction, a riverbank stockyard, and prohibition of motor boats/dredgers. The petitioner argued that these conditions had been relaxed by the Director's letter dated 28.04.2025 (which addressed Tahsildar residence certificates for newly formed taluks, verification of short-duration temporary permit periods, and relaxation of the 'traditional sand mining' condition for SC/ST-reserved blocks lacking eligible bidders) and noted Government Order No.CI-MMN189-2022 dated 14.12.2022, clause 10(d) (auction annulled if fewer than three technically qualified bidders, save for third and subsequent calls). The Court held the 28.04.2025 letter did not render the Rule 31-ZB conditions inapplicable; that the three-bidder relaxation operated only for third/subsequent calls, with no material showing the impugned tender was such a call; and that such relaxation would not import exclusion of Rule 31-ZB(1)(a)-(d). Admittedly not a resident of the concerned taluk, the petitioner's Bantwal Taluk residency certificate (15 years) was of little assistance. Eligibility of respondent No. 8 (whose no-due certificate was alleged erroneous) was not examined since the tender stood annulled; respondents were directed to consider those averments for future tenders. Petitioner had remitted EMD of `15,97,840/-.
