- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54213-DB WP No. 36615 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 36615 OF 2025 (GM-MM_S) BETWEEN: M/S LIMRA KYANITE MINERALS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY MANAGING PARTNER MR AFTAB AHMED M Y HAVING ITS OFFICE AT MUNICPAL OFFICE (M O) ROAD, PANADAVAPURA MANDYA DISTRICT 571434 KARNATAKA EMAIL limrakyaniteminerals@gmail.com MOBILE 91 8147065022 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RISHIKESH MADHAV, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT (MSME AND MINES) VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU 560001 Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54213-DB WP No. 36615 of 2025 2. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY 5TH FLOOR KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU 560 001 3. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY GRAMAPANCHAYATH ROAD BEHIND RTO OFFICE, SATHYAVANGALA HASSAN -573201 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.S. HARISH, GA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT NO.DMG-23026/7/2023/2025-26 (C.NO.1140748) DATED 15/10/2025 (ANNEXURE-A) AND THE LAPSING ORDER DATED 21/12/2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 (ANNEXURE- B) AND 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54213-DB WP No. 36615 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA) 1. The present writ petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs: a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, quashing the Impugned Endorsement No.DMG-23026/7/2023/2025-26 (C. No. 1140748) dated 15 October 2025 (ANNEXURE-A) and the lapsing Order dated 21 December 2023 issued by the Respondent No. 2 (ANNEXURE-B); b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the Respondents to treat the Petitioner's ML No. 2657 as valid and subsisting, allow the Petitioner to commence mining operations based on the approvals already obtained and extend the validity of the Mining Lease to 50 years in accordance with the provisions of Section 8A of MMDR Act, 1957; c) Pass any other order(s) or direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that it was granted with Mining Lease [ML No.2657] on 04.02.2011 for an extent of 7.0 acres of patta land in Madagatta Village, Belur Taluk, Hassan District for Kyanite mineral. That by virtue of the insertion of Section 8A in the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957 [MMDR Act] vide the Amendment Act of 2015, the mining lease - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54213-DB WP No. 36615 of 2025 granted to the petitioner is deemed to have been extended for a period of 50 years and hence the lease stands statutorily extended up to 03.02.2061. On 21.12.2023, respondent No.2 [Director, Department of Mines and Geology] passed an order under Section 26 (2) of the MMDR Act holding that the Mining Lease of the petitioner has lapsed since no mining activities were conducted from 2019-2020 till the date of the said order and the said lease has been kept inactive. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 05.03.2024, inter alia stating that there was no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before the order dated 21.12.2023 was passed. It also set out various reasons/circumstances due to which the mining activities could not be undertaken by the petitioner. Accordingly, respondent No.2 by proceedings dated 26.03.2024, considering the request made by the petitioner, withdrew the order dated 21.12.2023 declaring that the mining lease had lapsed and further gave four months time to the petitioner to restart mining operations, failing which, action will be taken as per the rules. Notice dated 21.06.2024 was issued by respondent No.3 [Senior Geologist, Department of Mines and Geology, Hassan] notifying the petitioner that the Technical Officer - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54213-DB WP No. 36615 of 2025 of respondent No.3 had visited the mining lease area on 15.06.2024 and conducted a site inspection. The petitioner was intimated to follow certain safety measures, inter alia, to install wire fencing around the leased area and provide photographs; submit a renewed quarry plan for approval; and obtain permit by paying necessary royalty and other fees required to conduct mining. A communication dated 27.02.2025 was issued by respondent No.2 notifying the petitioner to commence mining activities within four months, failing which, action will be taken. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that it has submitted a renewed quarrying plan for approval and also obtained all the requisite approvals including the approvals from the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board [KSPCB]. However, by endorsement dated 10.10.2025 issued by respondent No.2 and the order dated 15.10.2025, the request for the petitioner to recommence the mining operations has not been granted. Being aggrieved, the present petition is filed. 4. It is the contention of the petitioner that the order dated 21.12.2023, which held that the mining lease had automatically ceased to exist, is ultra vires and void. Reliance is placed on the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54213-DB WP No. 36615 of 2025 judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause vs. Union of India & Ors., : (2016) 11 SCC 455. 5. It is relevant to notice Section 4A(4) of the MMDR Act, which reads as under: “4-A. Termination of prospecting licences or mining leases.—(1)-(3)*** (4) Where the holder of a mining lease fails to undertake mining operations for a period of two years after the date of execution of the lease or having commenced mining operations, has discontinued the same for a period of two years, the lease shall lapse on the expiry of the period of two years from the date of execution of the lease or, as the case may be, discontinuance of the mining operations: Provided that the State Government may, on an application made by the holder of such lease before its expiry under this sub-section and on being satisfied that it will not be possible for the holder of the lease to undertake mining operations or to continue such operations for reasons beyond his control, make an order, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, to the effect that such lease shall not lapse: Provided further that the State Government, may on an application by the holder of a lease submitted within a period of six months from the date of its lapse and on being satisfied that such non-commencement or discontinuance was due to reasons beyond the control of the holder of the lease, revive the lease from such prospective or retrospective date as it thinks fit but not earlier than the date of lapse of the lease: Provided also that no lease shall be revived under the second proviso for more than twice during the entire period of the lease.” - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54213-DB WP No. 36615 of 2025 6. In the case of Common Cause (supra) the Supreme Court after noticing Section 4-A(4) of the MMDR Act held as under: "33. .................... A perusal of the aforesaid provision reveals that where a holder of mining lease does not carry out mining operations for a continuous period of two years, his mining lease would lapse. It was the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner Common Cause, as also, that of the learned Additional Solicitor General that the operation of Section 4-A(4) is automatic and requires no order to be passed. It was submitted that as soon as the leaseholder has committed the default of not being in a position to carrying on (or for not having actually carried on) mining operations for a continuous period of two years, the lease would lapse. The above two exigencies will be referred to as the first and the second contingency respectively, hereinafter. 34. According to the learned counsel the only remedy available to such a leaseholder to prevent the lease from lapsing is to move an application either prior to the expiry of the period of two years (of non-mining operations) or thereafter. The State Government on being satisfied that mining operations were not discontinued as expressed above for the reasons beyond the control of the leaseholder could make an order in the first contingency that the lease would not lapse. And in the second contingency that the lease would rematerialise. 35. It is not possible for us to accept that vital vested rights in a leaseholder can be curtailed without affording him an opportunity to repudiate the impression(s) of the competent authority, namely, that the leaseholder could not have (or had actually not) carried out mining operations for a continuous period of two years. Our instant contemplation stands affirmed through Rule 28 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54213-DB WP No. 36615 of 2025 of the Mineral Concession Rules. The same is reproduced below: ............................. It is apparent from a perusal of sub-rule (1) extracted above that the State Government is mandated to pass an order and thereby declare that a mining lease had lapsed. It is also the mandate of sub-rule (1) aforesaid that such an order passed by the State Government must be communicated to the leaseholder. On a conjoint reading of Section 4-A(4) and Rule 28(1), we are satisfied to hold that a mining lease under Section 4- A(4) would not be deemed to have lapsed till the State Government passes an order declaring the mining lease to have lapsed and further communicates the same to the leaseholder." 7. In the present case since the petitioner did not carryout mining activities for two years, notices dated 21.07.2022 and 07.11.2022 were issued to the petitioner and thereafter, the order dated 21.12.2023 had been passed ordering that the mining lease is determined as a lapsed lease. Subsequently, pursuant to the representation of the petitioner dated 5.3.2024, respondent No.2 passed an order dated 26.3.2024 for withdrawing of the lapsing order dated 21.12.2023 and granting four (4) months time to the petitioner to commence the mining operations. Respondent No.3 also issued a communication dated 21.6.2024 directing the petitioner to comply with certain pre-conditions. On 28.2.2025, respondent No.2 granted a final extension by ordering that the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54213-DB WP No. 36615 of 2025 lapsing order dated 21.12.2023 would automatically revive, if the mining activities did not commence within the stipulated time. 8. It is sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioner that various permits were obtained by the petitioner i.e., the approval of the mining plan from the Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM) on 4.7.2025; the Consent For Operation (CFO) from the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) on 5.8.2025, etc. However, the same would not aid the case of the petitioner since the mining operations did not commence within the stipulated time. It is thereafter, that the request of the petitioner to commence mining operations was rejected vide order dated 15.10.2025. 9. Reliance of the petitioner on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause (supra) would not aid the case of the petitioner since, as has been noticed above, adequate opportunity has been afforded to the petitioner before the authorities have concluded that the lease had lapsed. 10. Under the circumstances, as noticed above, the action of the respondents authorities in holding that the mining lease has lapsed cannot be faulted. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54213-DB WP No. 36615 of 2025 11. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit. 12. Pending IAs., if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE BS/ND List No.: 2 Sl No.: 15