- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29012-DB WP No. 13829 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT PETITION NO. 13829 OF 2025 (GM-MM-S) BETWEEN: 1. SRI RUDRASWAMY SON OF LATE KADAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO. 60, OPPOSITE HONNAMMA KALYANA MANTAPA ROAD HANUMANTHANAGAR LAYOUT RAMANAGARA TOWN RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 511. …PETITIONER (BY SRI D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI ANIL KUMAR H.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VIDHI BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VIDHI BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally signed by SRIDEVI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29012-DB WP No. 13829 of 2025 3. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY RAMANAGARA DISTRICT RACE COURSE ROAD RAMANAGARA - 571 511. 5. THE JOINT DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY SOUTH ZONE MYSURU - 570 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN CASE NO. gabhue/unira/kagagua.21/2011- 12/2024-25 ON THE FILE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, RAMANAGARA (RESPONDENT NO.4) AND REVIEW PETITION NO.65/2024-25 ON THE FILE OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, MYSURU PERUSE THE SAME AND ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION AND THEREBY & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29012-DB WP No. 13829 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning the orders dated 22.07.2024 and 18.03.2025, passed by respondent Nos.4 and 5 respectively. 2. The petitioner's application for a licence for quarrying minor minerals was rejected by the impugned order dated 22.07.2024 made by the respondent No.4 by referring to Rule 8(4) of the Karnataka Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1994. The said rule prohibits grant of any quarry lease or license, in respect of any minor mineral, to a person, who is convicted in violations of the Act or the Rules. 3. It is the petitioner’s case that he has not been convicted of any violation. Though an FIR No.313 of 2013 had been registered with Bidadi Police Station, however, 'B' report has been furnished after investigation, which according to the petitioner, exonerates him from any such offence. He submits that a closure report is filed and therefore, the petitioner's - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29012-DB WP No. 13829 of 2025 application for a licence could not be rejected on the ground that an FIR was pending investigation. The petitioner also submits that Rule 8(4) of the aforementioned Rules is attracted only on the applicant being convicted of an offence and not on account of a mere registration of a FIR. 4. The petitioner had filed a review petition seeking review of the impugned order dated 22.07.2024. However, the same was also rejected by an order dated 18.03.2025. It appears that the same was for the reason that the Deputy Commissioner of the District had not furnished the 'No Objection Certificate' [NOC] as required under Rule 8(5) of the said Rules. The NOC was also withheld on the ground that an FIR was pending. 5. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State submits that the State reserves the right to contest the 'B' report, as there is material to indicate that the petitioner had contravened the provisions of the Act and the Rules. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29012-DB WP No. 13829 of 2025 6. We note that the petitioner’s application has been rejected on the basis of the prohibition contained in Rule 8(4) of the Rules, which clearly is not attracted at this stage. The NOC has also been withheld on the ground that FIR is pending, without considering that a 'B' report has been filed. 7. In view of the above, we consider it apposite to remand the matter to respondent No.4 to consider the petitioner's application for licence afresh, bearing in mind the facts as discussed in the present petition. The impugned orders are set aside and respondent No.4 is directed to consider the petitioner’s application afresh. 8. We clarify that nothing stated in this order shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the petitioner’s application. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE SD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11