- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45531-DB WP No. 100995 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 100995 OF 2025 (GM-MM-S) BETWEEN: 1. S. KRISHNA REDDY S/O LATE S. VEERA REDDY AGE: 58 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: KOLAGALLU VILLAGE TQ. AND DIST: BALLARI - 583 101 …PETITIONER (BY SRI LAXMAN T MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY MINES VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001 2. JOINT DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY NORTH REGION BALLARI - 583 101 3. SENIOR GEOLOGIST (MINERALS) DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY Digitally signed by AMBIKA H B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45531-DB WP No. 100995 of 2025 BALLARI - 583 101 TQ. AND DIST: BALLARI …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER, OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.3 TO RENEW THE MINING LEASE OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF SURVEY NO. 491, KOLAGALLU VILLAGE, BALLARI DISTRICT, IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN REVISION PETITION NO. 24/2009, DATED. 29-06-2010/206 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-B & 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. POONACHA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that directions be issued to respondent No.3 to renew the mining lease granted to the petitioner in respect to Survey No.491, Kolagallu Village, Ballari District [the lease] in compliance with the order passed by respondent No.2 in Revision Petition No.24/2009. 2. The lease was granted to the petitioner for a period of five years with effect from 08.11.2002. The same expired on - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45531-DB WP No. 100995 of 2025 07.11.2007. Thereafter, on 24.01.2009, the petitioner sought renewal of the lease. However, the same was rejected. 3. The petitioner filed a revision petition, being Revision Petition No.24/2009 before respondent No.2 challenging the rejection of his renewal application. The said revision petition was allowed in terms of an order dated 29.06.2010. The revisional authority also imposed penalty of Rs.20,000/- per acre. Thereafter, the petitioner made repeated representations to respondent No.3 for renewal of the lease. But, no steps were taken. 4. The petitioner states that on 08.12.2013, he learnt that his file had been lost. The petitioner, thereafter, took steps to seek documents under the Right to Information Act, 2005. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The petitioner's grievance stems from non-implementation of the order dated 29.06.2010. Admittedly, the petitioner had not applied for renewal of the lease – which expired on 07.11.2007 – within the time as stipulated under Rule 21 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 as was then in force. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45531-DB WP No. 100995 of 2025 7. At the material time, there was no power with the Revisional Authority to condone the delay. This issue was considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.46587/2019 (GM-MM-S) which was rejected by an order on 09.10.2019. The relevant extract of the said order is set out below: "4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that an order was passed by the Revisional Authority on 2nd January 2013. By filing the said revision application, the order dated 28th October 2009 rejecting the application for renewal was challenged. He submitted that without raising any objection regarding the delay in making an application for renewal, the Revisional Authority allowed the revision application and directed the renewal of the quarrying lease. He submitted that notwithstanding the said binding order, the quarrying lease was not renewed. He further submitted that as the petitioner was entitled to renewal of the quarrying lease which expired on 3rd June 2009, the second renewal application dated 5th June 2014 was made. He further submitted that the order dated 23rd July 2014 rejecting both the applications of renewal has been made only on the basis of the complaints to the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission and to the Lokayukta. He further submitted that in the said proceedings, the petitioner was not a party. He, therefore, submitted that the petitioner is entitled for renewal of the quarrying lease. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions. Rule 21 of the said Rules was deleted on 12th August 2016. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 21, prior to the amendment, provided that an application for renewal of quarrying lease to quarry - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45531-DB WP No. 100995 of 2025 non-specified minor minerals in the land belonging to the Government must be made in the prescribed form on or before 90 days before the expiry of lease together with the certificate issued by the Competent Authority for having cleared the arrears, if any, in respect of the lease held by the applicant. A proviso was added to sub-Rule (2) of Rule 21 by the amendment made with effect from 16th December 2013. By the proviso, a limited provision for condonation of delay in making an application for renewal was incorporated. 6. Admittedly, the lease granted on 4th June 2004, expired on 3rd June 2009. The application for renewal was not made on or before 90 days before the expiry of the lease as provided in sub- rule (2) of Rule 21. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the order of the Revisional Authority dated 2nd January 2013. Perusal of the said order shows that the Revisional Authority has recorded the request of the petitioner to condone the delay in submitting the renewal application. However, there is no specific order passed by the Revisional Authority condoning the delay. Even assuming that the delay was condoned by the Revisional Authority, there was no power vested in the concerned authority to condone the delay in making an application under Rule 21. The power was subsequently incorporated in December 2013. A revision under Rule 53 was creation of the same Rules and therefore, the Revisional Authority had no jurisdiction to condone the delay in making an application for renewal as the Rules did not provide for a power to condone the delay. 8. The very fact that the proviso was added to sub-Rule (2) of Rule 21 of the said Rules by the amendment dated 16th December 2013 making a provision for condonation of delay in making an - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45531-DB WP No. 100995 of 2025 application for renewal shows that till 16th December 2013, there was no provision enabling the Licencing Authority or the Authority empowered to renew the lease to condone the delay in making an application for renewal. 9. 9. Assuming that the Revisional Authority had condoned the delay, the petitioner cannot seek a writ of mandamus on the basis of an order condoning the delay passed by the Revisional Authority as the Revisional Authority lacked jurisdiction to condone the delay. Therefore, the first application for renewal made on 16th September 2009 was not maintainable being barred by limitation. As the lease could not have been renewed on the basis of the said time barred application, there was no question of making an application for further renewal on the assumption that the lease which expired on 3rd June 2009 was renewed. In fact, the lease was not renewed and it could not have been renewed. 10. Therefore, in our view, this is not a fit case where the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be allowed to be invoked by the petitioner." 8. Concededly, the petitioner's case is covered by the aforesaid decision. 9. We also note there is an inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court considering that the petitioner's grievance relates to non-implementation of the order dated 29.06.2010, which was passed more than fifteen years ago. For - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45531-DB WP No. 100995 of 2025 this reason as well, we find no ground to entertain the present petition. 10. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 11. The pending interlocutory application also stands disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE AHB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3