IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.27209 OF 2019(GM-MM-S) BETWEEN M/s Shree Maruthi Stone Crushers A Proprietary Concern Represented by its Proprietor Sri. S.N Kanthraju Son of Late. Sri. Narasimhaiah Aged about 43 years Having its Office at No.348/1 Ganapathi Temple Road Giridarshini Layout Aalanahalli, Mysore-570001.
... Petitioner (By Shri. L.M.Chidanandayya, Advocate) AND 1. State of Karnataka Represented by its Secretary (MSME & Mines) Department of Commerce and Industries Vikasa Soudha Bangalore-560 001.
2. Director Department of Mines and Geology No.49, Khanija Bhavan Race Course Road Bangalore-560 001.
3. District Task Force Committee Headed by Deputy Commissioner Mandya District Mandya-571401.
4. Senior Geologist Department of Mines and Geology Mineral Division Mandya-571401.
5. Deputy Conservator of Forest Department of Forest Mandya Sub Division Mandya-571401.
6. Asst. Conservator of Forest Department of Forest Mandya Sub Division Subash Nagar Mandya-571401.
7. Joint Director Cum Revisional Authority Department of Mines and Geology South Zone, Mysore-570001.
... Respondents (By Shri.Vikram Huilgol, HCGP.) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for record which ultimately results in passing the order dated: 22.11.2012 passed by the Respondent-3 vide Annexure-A and the consequential order dated:30.01.2013 vide Annexure-B issued by the Respondent-4 and Annexure-C order dated: 30.05.2019 in Revision Petition No.62/2018-19 passed by the Respondent-7 and etc.
This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, Chief Justice made the following:
ORDER Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
2. An application for renewal of quarrying lease made by the petitioner was rejected by order dated 30th January 2013. Being aggrieved by the said order, writ petition was filed by the present petitioner which was disposed of by the order dated 5th March 2019. Paragraph 7 of the said order reads thus:
“7. In view of the same, these writ petitions are disposed of permitting the petitioners to avail alternative remedy provided under provisions of Rule 53(1) of the KMC Rules by filing a revision before the Revisional Authority. If such revision is filed by the petitioners, the Revisional Authority shall dispose of the same in accordance with law and as early as possible.”
3. We may note that in paragraph 4 of the said order, the Division Bench has recorded the statement of the learned Additional Government Advocate that the present petitioner should be permitted to avail the remedy provided under sub-rule (1) of Rule 53 of the relevant Rules. Accordingly, petitioner preferred a revision petition. The revision petition has been rejected on the ground that it is not filed within limitation. Considering the stand taken by the learned Additional Government Advocate and what is observed in paragraph 7 of the order dated 5th March, 2019, the revision petition could have not been disposed of on the ground of bar of limitation.
4. It is only on this ground that we set aside the order dated 30th May 2009 (Annexure-C) and remand the revision Application No.62/2018-19 for fresh consideration of the revision authority. The revision application shall be decided in the light of the observations made in the judgment and order, as expeditiously as possible and in any event, within a period of three months from today.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE Cm/-