- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15962-DB WP No. 3158 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 3158 OF 2025 (GM-MM_S) BETWEEN: 1. SRI BASHEER AHAMAD, S/O DADAPEER TALAGERE, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O MOTEBENNUR VILLAGE, BYADAGI TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT-581110. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SHIVALLI SHIVAYOGI YALLAPPAGOUDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPT. OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU, BENGALURU- 560001. 2. THE DIRECTOR/COMMISSIONER, DEPT. OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU- 560001. 3. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST, DEPT. OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, G.G. MAGAVI CHAMBERS, IIND FLOOR, P.B. ROAD, HAVERI-581110. 4. THE ADDL. DIRECTOR AND REVISIONAL AUTHORITY MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15962-DB WP No. 3158 of 2025 NORTH REGION, BELLARY DIST. BELLARY-583101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT/OFFICE ORDER No.GABHUEE/HIBHUHA/KAGAGU/ 2016- 17/2505 DATED 17/02/2017 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT No.3 AS BEING ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS AND CONTRARY TO LAW, EQUITY AND JUSTICE (ANNEXURE-B) AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND) Heard learned advocate Mr. Shivalli Shivayogi Yallappagouda for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar for the respondents. 2. The writ petition challenges the endorsement dated 17.02.2017 issued by respondent No.3 and the order dated 26.04.2024 passed by respondent No.4, the revisional authority. 3. The petitioner filed an application in the year 2013 seeking quarry lease to extract ordinary building stone in Sy.No.74, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15962-DB WP No. 3158 of 2025 measuring 1 acre situated at Kajjari Village, Ranebennur Taluka, Haveri District. 4. In view of amendment to Rule 8(5) of the Karnataka Minor Miner Concession Rules, 1994 (for short 'Rules 1994') mandating lease of minor mineral building stone by conducting tender-cum- auction process, the application of the petitioner came to be rejected on 17.02.2017. 4.1 Against the said order dated 17.02.2017, the petitioner filed revision application with delay of 6 years 5 months. The revision came to be rejected affirming the endorsement dated 17.02.2017. 5. Learned advocate for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged submits that invoking of Rule 8(B) of Rules 1994 is not sustainable in view of amendment to sub-rule in the year 2023. It is further submitted that though the application was rejected on 17.02.2017, the said order/endorsement was not served on the petitioner. It is further submitted that the application was filed in the year 2013. The application was not considered within the reasonable time. It is submitted that the respondent authorities are required to process the application by applying KMMC Rules 2023. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15962-DB WP No. 3158 of 2025 6. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate Ms.Niloufer Akbar supporting the impugned orders submits that in similar circumstances, this Court in Writ Petition No.3059 of 2025 has refused to entertain the writ petition by confirming the endorsement and the order of revisional authority. 7. Having considered the submissions of learned advocates for the parties and perused the papers, noticeably this Court in Sri Vijaybharat Bhojappa Ballari vs. The Secretary to Government and others in Writ Petition No.3059 of 2025 considered the very similar issue and contentions. 7.1 This Court in the judgment referred to supra declined to entertain the petition and has observed as under, " 4.1. Rule 53 reads as under, "53. Revision.- (1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Competent Authority not above the rank of Additional Director may, within sixty days of the date of communication of such order apply in Form- RV to the Controlling Authority for revision of such order. (2) Any person aggrieved by an order of the competent authority above the rank of Additional Director may, within sixty days from the date of communication of such order apply in Form-RV to the State Government for revision of such order: Provided that the Controlling Authority or the State Government, as the case may be, may, if he or it is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15962-DB WP No. 3158 of 2025 cause for not making the application in-time, entertain such application if it is made within a period of thirty days from the date of expiry of the aforesaid period of sixty days. (2-A) Any person aggrieved by the order of the competent authority or approving authority rejecting any offer or bid under Rule 31-H may within sixty days from the date of such order apply in Form RV to the State Government for revision of such order. (2-B) … (3) … (4) … (5) … (6) …" 4.2. Thus, the Rule making authority provided period of 90 days from the date of communication of the order to be subjected to revisional proceedings. As per the proviso, if the applicant is able to show sufficient cause for not making the application within the said 90 days, further grace period of 30 days is available from the date of expiry of the said period. 5. While dismissing the revisional application on the ground that it was beyond the limitation, the revisional authority observed that the revision petition was highly belated and therefore was not maintainable. 5.1. In addition to the said aspect, it was noted by the Revisional Authority that as per Rule 15-A(1) of the said Rules, no quarry lease or licence shall be granted with the extent less than the minimum as provided in Schedule II-A of the Rules and that, such extent in respect of the instant mineral is 2 Acres implying thereby that if the application is made for a land comprising less than 2 Acres, it is not liable to be considered. 5.2. In addition to the above aspect, the further aspect considered by the Revisional Authority is that the proposed stone quarry area is coming within 10 kilometers of the Eco Sensitive Zone of Ranebennur, Krishnamruga. 5.3. While the observations are made by the Revisional Authority in the aforesaid aspects also, what is waived by the revisional authority is the delay of six years and three months which rendered the revisional application incompetent in law. " - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15962-DB WP No. 3158 of 2025 8. In light of the observations made above by this Court in Writ Petition No.3059 of 2025, the Court is not inclined to entertain the petition for the reasons recorded above. The petition is dismissed as meritless. At this stage, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that Rule 8-B, as amended in the year 2023, would come to the rescue of the petitioner. This aspect is outside and beyond the scope of controversy in this petition. Notwithstanding the rejection of this petition, it is open for the petitioner to approach the Competent Authority seeking the benefit of Rule 8-B, if available in law and in the facts of the case, the Competent Authority shall consider such request, if made entirely on merits and in accordance with law. Sd/- (N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11