IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.6072 OF 2019(GM-MM-S) BETWEEN:
M/S. KEDARESHWARA ASSOCIATES REPRESENTED BY PROPRIETOR MR. DUNDI BASAPPA, KUMARAPATANAM-581 123, RANEBENNUR TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT, KARNATAKA.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI D.L.N.RAO, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI ANIRUDH ANAND, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF MINES, SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI – 110 011.
2. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.
3. COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY, "KHANIJA BHAVAN", RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001, KARNATAKA.
4. SENIOR GEOLOGIST HAVERI DIVISION, HAVERI, HAVERI DISTRICT-581 123.
5. SRI CHETAN M. OLEKAR RESIDING AT GOWRISHANKAR NAGAR, RANEBENNUR, RANEBENNUR TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT – 581 123.
6. SRI. IRAPPA D. LAMANI RESIDING AT M.G. THIMAPUR VILLAGE, HAVERI TALUK AND DISTRICT-581 123.
7. SRI. S. R. RAJU RESIDING AT NO. 27, SANMAN COLONY, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT – 580 002.
8. SRI. MRUTYUNJAYAPPA SIDDAL SON OF GUDDAPPA, PUJAR STREET, AREMALLAPUR, RANEBENNUR TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT-581 123.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.A.ARIGA, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SRI Y.H.VIJAY KUARM, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4;
SRI BASAVARAJ S. SAPPANNAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.5 AND 8;
RESPONDENT NO.6 TO BE TREATED AS GOOD SERVICE VIDE ORDER DATED 18.09.2019;
RESPONDENT NO.7 IS SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN REVISION APPLICATION NO.31/(074)/2017/RC-1 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 DATED 11.7.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE – A ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Aggrieved by the order dated 11.07.2018, in Revision Application No.31/(074)/2017/RC-1, passed by the Ministry of Mines – respondent No.1, in rejecting the revision application, the revisionist has filed this petition.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, he was granted a mining lease No.2471 for the purpose of excavating moulding sand in an area of 300 acres in Nagenahalli and Maddenur villages, Ranebennur taluk, Dharwad District. The lease was for a period of 20 years from 14.04.1978. On 23.02.2013, the Director of Mines and Geology (DMG) recommended premature termination of the petitioner’s mining lease under Section 4A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the MMDR’ Act) to the State Government. By a representation dated 17.04.2013, the petitioner has stated that the recommendation is without the authority of law and contrary to the provisions of MMDR Act and objections were filed before the State Government. The matter was listed on a number of dates. A written statement was also filed. Thereafter, the impugned order at Annexure ‘A’ was passed by respondent No.1 which was the order of the Revisional Authority holding that the State Government has rightly terminated the lease of the petitioner under Section 19 of the MMDR Act. The order was passed by the State Government in terms of the Annexure ‘F’ dated 08.12.2016, terminating the mining lease of the petitioner. Thereafter, the revision was filed before the Central Government wherein, the revision was rejected vide Annexure ‘A’. Consequent to the same, a tender was invited for the very same mining areas and was granted in terms of Annexure ’B’. Thereafter, lease deeds were executed in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 8 vide Annexures K, K1, K2 and K3 respectively. Questioning the same, the instant writ petition has been filed.
3. Sri D.L.N.Rao, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner’s counsel submits that substantial objections were filed before the State Government and the same has not been considered. He has appeared before the State Government on every date of hearing, except the last two hearing dates. The same is noted in the order of the State Government at paragraph No.12, that except on the last two hearing dates, the petitioner was present and he was placed ex-
parte and the matter was proceeded. Therefore, there is an infraction of law and seeks to set aside the termination order passed by the State Government.
4. The same is disputed to by the learned Central Government Counsel for Central Government and learned Additional Government Advocate for State Government.
5. On hearing learned counsels, we are of the view that appropriate interference is called for. So far as holding that the petitioner being placed exparte is concerned, we are unable to accept the same as the petitioner was present on various dates except on the last two hearing dates. The case was conducted on various dates, but as could be seen at paragraph No.12, it is only on the last two dates, the petitioner was not present. However, objections in detail has been filed by the petitioner in terms of Annexure ‘D’ and he has also submitted the written submission at Annexure ‘E’. The petitioner was present on every date of hearing, except the last two hearing dates. Even though the petitioner was not present on the last two hearing dates, the written submissions filed by the petitioner was required to be considered by the State Government.
6. On questioning as to why the representation and written submissions were not considered, the learned Government Advocate is not able to point out or submit as to why the same were not considered by the authority. Therefore, we find that the legal right of the petitioner has been infringed, since the order has been passed without hearing the petitioner and without considering his written objections.
7. Further, so far as the other contentions being urged it is not necessary for us to go into the merits of the case. So far as exercising the writ jurisdiction is concerned, the impugned order is illegal and becomes unsustainable, on the aforesaid grounds itself.
8. Subsequent to the impugned orders passed by the State Government and the Central Government, the lease has been re-auctioned and respondent Nos.5 to 8 being declared as the successful bidders, they have executed lease deed in the year 2018 for a period of 5 years.
9. In view of the setting aside of the impugned order passed by the Revisional Authority, necessarily, the order granting lease deeds in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 8 cannot be sustained.
10. However, in view of the fact that respondent Nos.5 to 8 are presently excavating under the lease deeds, we deem it just and appropriate that their interest also be protected.
11. Under these circumstances, the petition is allowed. The order dated 11.07.2018, passed in Revision Application No.31/(074)/2017/RC-1, by the respondent No.1 – Ministry of Mines vide Annexure ‘A’ is set aside.
12. The matter is remanded to respondent No.2 for consideration of the matter afresh on hearing the petitioner or his counsel.
13. To this effect, the petitioner shall appear before respondent No.2 on 15.01.2019. The respondent No.2 shall consider the matter in accordance with law and shall pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the said date. As a consequence of the setting aside of Annexure ‘A’, necessarily the lease grant would not survive for consideration. The same requires to be set aside.
14. However, assuming that an order would be passed by the State Government rejecting the plea of the petitioner, then the lease already granted in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 8 shall continue. On the other hand, if the respondents were to pass favourable orders in favour of the petitioner, it is only in that event that this order will come into effect and the leases granted in favour of the respondent Nos.5 to 8 shall be deemed to be cancelled. This in our considered view would balance the equities of the petitioner as well as respondent Nos.5 to 8. Writ Petition is disposed off accordingly.
All contentions are kept open.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE nvj