- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46480-DB WP No. 27101 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH 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. 27101 OF 2023 (GM-MM_S) BETWEEN: SRI. D. K. JAYANNA S/O D.R. KULLEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT DOORANAHALLI GRAMA, KATTAYA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT-573128. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P MAHESHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCE, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001 BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR MINES AND GEOLOGY, KANIJABHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. 3. THE TASK FORCE COMMITTEE FOR QUARYING HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN-573201 BY ITS SECRETARY. Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46480-DB WP No. 27101 of 2023 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN-573201. 5. SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, BEHIND RTO OFFICE, GRAMPANCHAYATH ROAD, SATYAMANGALA, HASSAN-573201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER FOR GRANT OF QUARRYING LEASE TO AN EXTENT OF 4 ACRES IN SY.NO.95, GUDDATHERANYA VILLAGE HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT BY CONSIDERING APPLICATION DATED 04/12/2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, AND FURTHER DIRECT THE REVENUE AUTHORITY TO SUBMIT THEIR NOC AS ISSUED TO OTHER QUARRY OWNERS IN THE SAID SURVEY NUMBER AS PER THE LETTER OF 5TH RESPONDENT VIDE ANENXURE-H AND 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46480-DB WP No. 27101 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that a direction be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's application dated 4.12.2014 for grant of quarrying lease to an extent of 4 acres falling in Sy.No.95 of Guddatheranya Village, Hassan Taluk and District. Additionally, the petitioner seeks a direction be issued to the revenue authorities to submit their No Objection Certificate (NOC) as issued to the other quarry owners. 2. The present petition was filed on 27.11.2023. However, subsequent thereto, the petitioner's application was considered and an endorsement dated 29.11.2024 has been issued, inter alia, stating that the Revenue Department has denied to issue a NOC and therefore, the petitioner's application for grant of quarrying lease stands closed. The said endorsement also notes that the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan, had informed that a gas pipeline is passing in Sy.No.95 to Hassan - Mysuru and thus, there is no provision to grant NOC from the Revenue Department. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46480-DB WP No. 27101 of 2023 3. In view of the said endorsement, the petitioner has filed an application styled as an "application for additional facts" being IA.No.2/2025, praying that the said endorsement be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the decision of this Court in K.S.R.T.C. vs. Karnataka State Transport Authority : ILR 1993 KAR 436 (DB), as well as the decisions of the Supreme Court in M/s. Shiv Shankar Dal Mills vs. State of Haryana : (1980) 2 SCC 437, Ramesh Chandra Sankla v. Vikram Cement : (2008) 14 SCC 58 and U. P.State Co- operative., Land Development Bank Ltd. vs. Chandra Bhan Dubey : (1999) 1 SCC 741. On the strength of the said decisions, he contends that the powers of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are wide and directions can be issued in a public interest. 5. We do not find any ground to expand the scope of the present petition. 6. As noted above, the petitioner's prayer in the main petition is confined to seeking a direction that his application for quarrying lease be considered. The same has been rejected by an endorsement dated 29.11.2024. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46480-DB WP No. 27101 of 2023 7. There is no cavil as to the jurisdiction of this Court. However, it is well established that normally a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be entertained. It is also well established that remedies under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are discretionary remedies and the same may not be entertained where the petitioner has an alternate statutory remedy. 8. The petitioner has an alternate statutory remedy and therefore, we do not consider it apposite to entertain the present petition. 9. In view of the above, we decline to entertain the present petition. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Needless to state that this order would not preclude the petitioner from availing statutory remedies in accordance with law. 10. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE ND List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16