IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.L.NARAYANA SWAMY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITIONS No.44525-44526/2018 (GM-MM-S) BETWEEN :
1. SHANKAR S/O LATE P. ESHWARA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 2. V.E. MURUGESHA S/O LATE P. ESHWARA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT KAVERIPURA VILLAGE BANNANGAADI POST PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 432 ... PETITIONERS (BY SHRI. B. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND :
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VIDHI BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR & REVISIONAL AUTHORITY DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY SOUTH ZONE, MYSORE-570 001 3. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY (MINERALS DIVISION), 1ST CROSS VIDYANAGARA MANDYA CITY-571 401 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND CHAIRMAN TASK FORCE COMMITTEE BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU-560 009 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. V.G. BHANUPRAKASH, AGA) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD:27.3.2017 PASSED BY THE R-2 IN REVISION PETITION NO.453/2008 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 13.03.2019, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR J, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioners have filed these writ petitions challenging order dated March 27, 2017 passed in Revision Petition No.454/2008 by the Joint Director and the Revisional Authority, Department of Mines and Geology rejecting the revision petition and also prayed for a direction to the Senior Geologist to extend the quarry license.
2. Petitioners' father late P.Eswara was granted a mining lease to extract ordinary building stone in Sy. No. 1 measuring 2 acres of Babybettadakavalu village, Pandavapura Taluk, Mandya District on January 7, 2003 for a period of five years. The term of lease expired on January 6, 2008. Lessee filed an application seeking renewal of lease on August 13, 2008. The same was rejected on the ground that the renewal application was not filed ‘in time’. Feeling aggrieved, lessee challenged the said order before the Revisional Authority. By the impugned order the revision petition has been dismissed. Hence, these writ petitions.
3. Shri.Chandrashekar H.B., learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order is nonest in the eye of law as the same is passed against a dead person. He further contended that lessee was an illiterate person and therefore, could not present the application in time. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing these writ petitions.
4. Shri.V.G.Bhanuprakash, learned AGA submitted that as per Rule 9(2) of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, unless an application is presented at least 90 days before the expiry of lease, the same cannot be considered. He placed reliance on Common Cause Vs.
Union of India1, in support of his contention. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the writ petitions.
5. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the records.
6. Admittedly, the lease deed stood expired on January 6, 2008 and application for renewal has been presented on August 13, 2008.
7. The Revisional Authority has clearly recorded that petitioners have been heard in the matter and they have stated before the Revisional Authority that as the lessee did not have proper knowledge with regard to the Rules, the renewal application was not filed in time.
1 W.P.(Civil) No.114/2014 8. As the petitioners have been heard by the Revisional Authority, the ground that the impugned order has been passed against a dead person, is untenable. Further, the renewal application has not been filed in time. In the circumstances, we find no error in the impugned order passed by the revisional authority.
Resultantly these petitions fail and they are accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE SPS