Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 74647 (KAR)

SRI. M. DINESH v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/27671/2025 · 2025-11-19

C M Poonacha

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47560-DB WP No. 27671 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH 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. 27671 OF 2025 (GM-MM-S) BETWEEN: 1. SRI M. DINESH S/O. LATE G.A. MARAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT. KALAGHATTA VADDARAHATTI VILLAGE KALAGHATTA POST HOLALAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 518 …PETITIONER (BY SRI BHAT GANAPATHY NARAYAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. B.R. AMEEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY 2. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROADS BENGALURU - 560 001 Digitally signed by SRIDEVI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47560-DB WP No. 27671 of 2025 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY CHITRADURCA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY APPROPRIATE ORDER OR DIRECTION BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.01.2024, BEARING Sl. No. GA.BHU.EI/U.NI.CHI/ KA.GA.GHU.A/ 81/2016- 17/2023-24/3489-90, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT No.3, AS PER ANNEXURE-F & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 the impugned order dated 12.01.2024 passed by the respondent No.3, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner's father (since deceased) for grant of a quarry lease in respect of building stone, was once again rejected. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47560-DB WP No. 27671 of 2025 2. The petitioner's father had made an application on 03.02.2009, for grant of a quarry lease in respect of land measuring one acre falling in Survey No.13, located at Marapura Village, Holalakere Taluk, Chittadurga District (subject land). The record does not indicate that any NOCs were issued by the concerned authorities at the material time. However, the said application came to be rejected by an order dated 16.11.2016 on the ground that Rule 8 (B) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 [Rules], had been amended and the said application was rendered ineligible. There is no material on record to indicate that the petitioner's father had pursued the said application prior to its rejection on 16.11.2016. 3. The petitioner filed an application seeking to resurrect the said application. However, the same was dismissed by an order dated 12.01.2024, which is impugned in the present petition. 4. A plain reading of the impugned order indicates that the application was rejected on the ground that the applied area was less than two acres and in terms of Rule 15A of the Rules, no quarry lease or licence could be granted with an extent less than - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47560-DB WP No. 27671 of 2025 the minimum extent as specified in Schedule II-A, which stipulates a minimum area of two acres for grant of quarry lease in respect to building stones. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a letter dated 16.01.2024 to the Deputy Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Chitradurga, enclosing therewith certain documents for verification. No further orders or action were required to be passed or taken in respect to the petitioner's letter dated 16.01.2024, as the application stood rejected. 5. We find no infirmity with the impugned order dated 12.01.2024. Rule 15-A of the said Rules is unambiguous and proscribes grant of quarry lease in respect of an area less than the area that is stipulated under the Rules. There is also no material on record to indicate that the petitioner's application falls within the exception of the proviso to Rule 15A of the Rules. 6. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE SD, List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11