- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28411-DB WP No. 7261 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH 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.7261 OF 2024 (GM-MM_S) BETWEEN: 1. G. K. BASAVARAJU BIN KARIBASAVAYYA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDENT OF SHIRINAGAR, 2ND CROSS DEVARAYAPATTAN POST TUMKUR - 572 104 TUMKUR DIST …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVINDRA GAJANAN KOLLE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU BENGALURU - 560 001 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VIKASA SOUDH, BENGALURU BENGLAURU - 560 001 3. THE DIRECTOR AND COMMISSIONER DEPT. OF MINES AND GEOLOGY Digitally signed by AMBIKA H B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28411-DB WP No. 7261 of 2024 KHANIJ BHAVAN NO. 49, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY KHANIJA BHAVANA SPOORTHI LAYOUT BADDIHALLI, RING ROAD TUMKUR - 572 104 5. THE JOINT DIRECTOR AND REVISING AUTHORITY KHANIJ BHAVAN, 1ST D CROSS ROAD 'I' BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNA NAGARA MYSURU - 570 022 …RESPONDENTS (SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, ADDITIONAL 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 OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING TO QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 27.12.2023 PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMIARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28411-DB WP No. 7261 of 2024 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 an endorsement dated 27.12.2023 [Endorsement No.GaBhuE/UNiTa/ KaGaGu-562/2023-24/5377] made by respondent No.4 [the Deputy Director and Competent Authority], whereby the petitioner’s application for renewal of lease in respect of Quarry Lease No.562 granted for extracting ordinary building stone, was rejected. The petitioner was granted the quarry lease [Quarry Lease No.562] over an area of 2 Acres in Survey No.9 of Panditanhalli Village, Tumakuru Taluka and District on 25.03.2006. The term of the lease was five years. The said lease expired on 24.03.2011. On 06.05.2013, the petitioner filed an application for renewal of the said lease. However, the said application was rejected by respondent No.4 on 08/10.05.2013 for the reason that the petitioner had not applied for renewal within the stipulated period of ninety days from the expiry of the lease. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28411-DB WP No. 7261 of 2024 2. The petitioner preferred revision petition before respondent No.5, which was dismissed on 12.01.2017. 3. Rule 8-A of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 [the Rules] was substituted with effect from 12.08.2016 and was further, amended with effect from 17.03.2023. According to the petitioner, the import of the amendment was that, his quarry lease of five years would be deemed to be for thirty years. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a representation dated 19.12.2023 with respondent No.4 praying that an order be passed extending the period of Quarry Lease No.562 for thirty years in terms of Rule 8-A (2) of the Rules. This representation was rejected by the impugned endorsement. 4. Sub Rule (2) of Rule 8-A of the Rules, as amended, reads as under: "(2) All the quarrying leases or licenses granted before the commencement of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2016, shall be deemed to have been granted for a period of fifty years in respect of specified minor minerals and for a period of thirty years in respect of non- specified minor minerals from the date of its original grant, subject to establishment of mineral availability and workability of the quarry and also subject to the condition that all the terms and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28411-DB WP No. 7261 of 2024 conditions of the lease or licenses have been complied by the lessee or licensee and also subject to the condition that renewal application for the expired lease had been made by the lessee within stipulated time: Provided that, the mining leases of the minerals which are classified as minor minerals by the Central Government vide Notification No. S.O. 423(E), dated 10-2-2015 shall be deemed to have been granted for fifty years, for an area already granted under such lease and be considered as quarrying lease or licence as the case may be, subject to establishment of mineral availability and workability of the quarry and also subject to the condition that all the terms and conditions of the lease have been complied by the lessee or licence: Provided further that, the quarry lease or licence which are granted before 12-8-2016 and the period of such lease or licence expired before commencement of these rules shall be considered for extension of period under the provisions of this rule. 5. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of the second proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-A of the Rules, the period of such lease or license which has expired before the commencement of the Rules is also required to be considered for extension as stipulated under the main provision of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-A of the Rules. According to the petitioner, by virtue of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28411-DB WP No. 7261 of 2024 said proviso, the lease in respect of Quarry Lease No.562 would now extend from 25.03.2006 to 24.03.2036. 6. We find little merit in the said contention. 7. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-A of the Rules makes it amply clear that the deeming provision for extending the term of the lease to fifty years or thirty years, as the case may be, would be applicable provided that terms and conditions of the lease or license have been complied with by the lessee or licensee and "also subject to the condition that renewal application for expired lease has been made by the lessee within the stipulated time". 8. In the present case, the said condition is not satisfied as the petitioner had not made an application for renewal of the lease within the stipulated period of ninety days. 9. It is also material to note that the said condition was inserted by a Notification dated 17.03.2023 with effect from 17.03.2023. However, prima facie, the said condition would necessarily have to be read into Rule 8-A of the Rules for a meaningful interpretation of the second proviso to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-A of the Rules. The proviso is necessary to be read in context with the main proviso of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28411-DB WP No. 7261 of 2024 Sub-rule (2). Second proviso cannot be read to breathe life in a lease that has already expired and surrendered. The deeming provisions of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8A of the Rules must necessarily be construed to extend the grant for a larger term in respect of existing or live leases and in cases where the lessee has some right for extension. The same would not be applicable where the grant is expired and the lease is terminated without renewal. In cases where the lease had expired but, a renewal application was filed within the period of ninety days, the lessee would have a right for extension of the lease. Therefore, such leases could not be considered as dead, notwithstanding that the term had expired. The second proviso to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-A of the Rules merely seeks to clarify the same and thus, even though in certain cases, the lease or license has expired, by virtue of the second proviso, the deeming provision of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8A of the Rules would be applicable provided that a vestige of some right remained with the lessee. 10. The second proviso to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-A of the Rules has to be read in the context of the legislative intent of framing Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-A of the Rules. In K.K Industries Ltd. vs - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28411-DB WP No. 7261 of 2024 Chief Inspector of Factories and Boilers: (1996) 6 SCC 665, the Supreme Court had observed as under: "33. A proviso to a provision in a statute has several functions and while interpreting a provision of the statute, the court is required to carefully scrutinise and find out the real object of the proviso appended to that provision. It is not a proper rule of interpretation of a proviso that the enacting part or the main part of the section be construed first without reference to the proviso and if the same is found to be ambiguous only then recourse may be had to examine the proviso as has been canvassed before us. On the other hand an accepted rule of interpretation is that a section and the proviso thereto must be construed as a whole, each portion throwing light, if need be, on the rest. A proviso is normally used to remove special cases from the general enactment and provide for them specially. 34. A proviso qualifies the generality of the main enactment by providing an exception and taking out from the main provision, a portion, which, but for the proviso would be a part of the main provision. A proviso must, therefore, be considered in relation to the principal matter to which it stands as a proviso. A proviso should not be read as if providing something by way of addition to the main provision which is foreign to the main provision itself." 11. We are unable to accept that the object of the second proviso to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8A of the Rules is to resurrect closed leases. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28411-DB WP No. 7261 of 2024 12. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also fairly points out that the controversy is covered against the petitioner by a decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.7325/2024 c/w Writ Petition No.7029/2024 captioned G.K. Rathna v. the State of Karnataka and others decided on 24.09.2024. The relevant extract of the said decision is set out below: "5.5.1 The application filed on 09.05.2013 for renewal was rejected on 23.07.2014, and the revision application has also received the same fate. One more application dated 16.06.2016, resulting in rejection by order dated 29.06.2016, also faced the same fate in the hands of the revisional authority on 12.01.2017. 5.5.2 As no renewal application as per the prescribed Rules was filed 90 days before the expiry of the lease/license, the terms and conditions of the lease/license are violated. As a consequence, the petitioner would not be entitled to a deemed extension under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-A. 5.5.3 The reliance on the second Proviso to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-A to contend that the petitioner would be entitled to a deemed extension on the expiry of the lease/license period is misconceived. The settled position of law that the Proviso shall not widen the scope of substantive provision needs no reiteration. The second Proviso has to be read with literal meaning. On a conjoint reading of Proviso and - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28411-DB WP No. 7261 of 2024 Sub-rule (2), it would only indicate that the lease/license of which renewal application is filed, during the pendency of renewal application, the period of such lease/license has expired, such pending applications shall be considered for extension under the Rule. Such pending applications are permitted to be considered as the same would comply with the lease/license terms and conditions." 13. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE AHB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28