- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45698-DB WP No. 26951 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH 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. 26951 OF 2025 (GM-MM-S) BETWEEN: 1. M/S. BAIRAVA STONE CRUSHER OFFICE AT RAILWAY STATION MAIN ROAD GANDHINAGAR TUMKUR TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 102 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI S.D. DILIP KUMAR …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BHAT GANAPATHI NARAYANA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY 2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY SOUTH DIVISION MYSURU - 570 022 Digitally signed by SRIDEVI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45698-DB WP No. 26951 of 2025 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY GANDHI NAGAR TUMKUR TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572102 …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 07.05.2025, BEARING Sl.No.GA.BHU.EI/JO.NI/DA.VA.MY/REVISIONAL-71/2023/2025-26/ 320-322 IN REVISION PETITION No. 71/2023 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT No.2, AS PER ANNEXURE-E AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE IMPUGNED REJECTION ORDER DATED 16.12.2014, BEARING Sl.No.GA.BHU.EI/U.NI.THU/KA. GA.GHIV.A-55/2014-15/5686 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT No.3, AS PER ANNEXURE-D & 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 impugning an order dated 07.05.2025 passed by second respondent in RP.No.71/2023. The petitioner also assails the impugned rejection order dated 16.12.2014. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45698-DB WP No. 26951 of 2025 2. The petitioner had made an application for grant of quarry lease in respect of lands falling in Survey No.35, measuring 20 acres, situated in Agrahara Village, Koratagere Taluk, Tumkur District. In the context of the said application, a joint inspection report was furnished by Assistant Commissioner, Madhugiri Sub-Division. It is reported that the land in question was at a distance of 10 metres from cultivated land. Further, the land falling in Sy.No.3 was 'gomala land' and part of it was also stated to be in 'forest area'. Additionally, it was noticed that there is an electric high- tension wire passing at a distance of about 20 meters in the area and there is also a nala (stream) running through the land in question. The villagers in the area had also objected on the ground that wild animals inhabited the said area. The relevant extract to the said report dated 03.11.2014 is set out below: "As found during the site investigation, the questionable S.No. 35 in the RTC at Column 9 is occupied by the Government Gomal and Forest Conservation Officer. The said area is adjacent to Sy.No. 149 and is the holding land of Sy.No. 149. There are cultivated lands at a distance of about 10 meters from the said area. The said Sy.No. 35 is a Joint Government Gomal land of forest area and whether the said proposed area belongs to the forest area? The DFO present during the site investigation has stated that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45698-DB WP No. 26951 of 2025 there is no information and survey map. At a distance of about 20 meters from the said area, an electric wire and a stream passes. The villagers present have said that the said area is a hilly area and bears live in it. At a distance of about 1 km., There is Agrahara village and a farm. Therefore, granting a quarry lease in the said area would cause public nuisance." 3. In view of the above report, the petitioner's application for a quarry lease was rejected by the third respondent (Deputy Director of Department of Mines and Geology). The petitioner filed a writ petition being WP.No.204/2020 (GM-MM- S), inter alia, impugning the rejection order dated 16.12.2014, which is once again impugned in the present petition. This Court rejected the said petition on the ground that the petitioner's application was rejected on 16.12.2014 and the same could not be considered by virtue of Rule 8-B(2) of the Karnataka Minor Minerals Concession, Rules, 1994. The petitioner's case ought to have rested at that stage, as the petitioner did not avail of any remedies in respect of the said order. 4. However, the petitioner once again filed a revision petition being R.P.No.71/2023 seeking to assail the rejection order dated 16.12.2014. The said revision petition is rightly - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45698-DB WP No. 26951 of 2025 dismissed by an order dated 23.04.2025, which is impugned in the present petition. The respondents have noted that the revision application was filed after a delay of eight years and seven months. There were no reasons for the said delay. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed the revision petition after he learnt that an area of about 4.3 acres falling in Survey No. 35, which is adjacent to the area applied by the petitioner, has been granted to another applicant. He submits that since 'No Objection Certificate' dated 11.08.2016 is issued by the Assistant Commissioner in respect of adjacent land, the petitioner's application ought to be considered once again in the light of the 'No Objection Certificate' dated 11.08.2016. 6. We find no merit in the present petition. The petitioner's application was rejected on 16.12.2014. The same cannot be resurrected after a period of 11 months. We are not persuaded that the petitioner's repeated petitions are required to be entertained challenging the same order, albeit on different grounds. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45698-DB WP No. 26951 of 2025 7. In view of the above, we do not consider it apposite to entertain the present petition. 8. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE SD List No.: 2 Sl No.: 10