- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38665-DB WP No. 25742 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT PETITION NO. 25742 OF 2025 (GM-MM_S) BETWEEN: S.M. NANDEESH GOWDA, S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/OF NO.1165, 12TH MAIN, HAL 2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 008. …PETITIONER (BY SRI K.N PHANINDRA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI AVINASH GOWDA G S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. JOINT DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, SOUTH DIVISION, MYSURU-570 022. 3. SENIOR GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, KUMBARAHALLI, KOLAR-563 203. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA) Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38665-DB WP No. 25742 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (i) CALL FOR RECORDS IN THE ABOVE MATTER, (ii) TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED R.P No. 88/2024-25/25-26/810 DATED 21.06.2025 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT PRODUCED HERETO AS ANNEXURE-A ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL ORDER (PER: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) 1. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order passed by respondent No.2 [Joint Director, Department of Mines and Geology] dated 21.06.2025, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner questioning the order of the competent authority [respondent No.3], dated 30.10.2007 was dismissed. 2. The learned counsel for petitioner contends that the petitioner had filed an application seeking grant of quarry lease for extraction of ordinary building stone over an area of 10 acres in Survey No.90 of Kendatti Village, Kolar Taluk, vide application dated 06.05.2006; after the scrutiny the said application was dismissed by respondent No.3 on 30.10.2007 on the ground that - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38665-DB WP No. 25742 of 2025 the land sought to be quarried is a gomala land. Against the said order, the writ petitioner filed a revision in RP No.359/2008 before respondent No.2. The petitioner was unrepresented when the said revision was taken up for hearing. Despite issuance of notice to the writ petitioner on 23.01.2012 and 06.02.2012, he did not receive the same, as he had changed his residence to some other address. It is stated that he had not informed to respondent No.2 about the change of address. Consequently, the said RP No.359/2008 came to be dismissed on 06.02.2012. 3. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the writ petitioner filed an application to respondent No.3 seeking to give another opportunity and to consider the application for grant of quarrying lease, which came to be dismissed on 19.09.2024 on the ground that the application for quarrying lease was already dismissed and even the revision also came to be dismissed. Against the said order, the writ petitioner filed a fresh revision petition in RP No.88/2024-25. 4. After hearing the writ petitioner, the said revision came to be dismissed by order dated 21.06.2025, assailing which, the petitioner is before this Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38665-DB WP No. 25742 of 2025 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not appear before respondent No.2 at the time of hearing of his revision petition No.359/2008 since he had changed his residence and he did not receive the notices issued by the revisional authority. It is submitted that the petitioner had shifted his residence to a rented premises for the purpose of repairs to his house and therefore, he had no knowledge of the hearing of the revision petition. It is submitted that such failure of the petitioner to appear before the revisional authority in the year 2012 was for a bonafide reasons and as such, he should have given another opportunity. 6. It is evident that the petitioner is seeking shelter under Section 8B of the Karnataka Minor Miners Concessions Rules, 1994, which provides for considering the applications for quarrying lease which were pending prior to 2016 to be valid and therefore, he is entitled for the relief. It is pertinent to note that the application for quarrying lease had been dismissed on the ground that the land was a gomala land. This aspect was considered and as such, there was no such right for the writ petitioner to seek the quarrying lease. Secondly, when the revision was pending, the petitioner has failed - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38665-DB WP No. 25742 of 2025 to inform the change of his address to respondent No.2 [revisional authority]. Evidently, the revision came to be dismissed in the year 2012. After lapse of more than 12 years, the petitioner has filed the application before the competent authority and when it was rejected, a fresh revision has been filed. The order of the revisional authority dated 06.02.2012 in RP No.359/2008 has attained finality; therefore a fresh revision petition is not maintainable. In that view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be faulted. 7. In the result, the writ petition is unmerited and therefore, the same is dismissed. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13