- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50333-DB WP No. 36012 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD 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. 36012 OF 2025 (GM-MM-S) BETWEEN: 1. SRI B.M. RAJASHEKAR S/O LATE MUDALAGIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.811, BHOOMIKA NILAYA NEAR POST OFFICE, BIDADI RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 109 …PETITIONER (BY SRI BHARATHGOWDA B.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001 2. THE SECRETARY COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001 Digitally signed by VEERENDRA KUMAR K M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50333-DB WP No. 36012 of 2025 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND CHAIRMAN DISTRICT TASK FORCE COMMITTEE (MINES) RAMANAGARA DISTRICT RAMANAGARA - 571 511 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KANAKA NURSING HOME ROAD KANAKAPURA - 562 105 5. THE JOINT DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY SOUTH ZONE MYSURU - 568 353 …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 WRIT OF CERTIORARI OF ANY APPROPRIATE ORDER QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED IN REVISION PETITION NO.237/2007- 08 DATED 13/09/2024, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.5, (PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C) & 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:50333-DB WP No. 36012 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition inter-alia impugning an order dated 13.09.2024 [impugned order] passed by respondent No.5, whereby the revision petition preferred by the petitioner [being Revision Petition No.237/2007-08] is rejected. The petitioner further prays that directions be issued to respondent Nos.3 to 5 to consider the petitioner's application dated 13.12.2005. 2. The petitioner had filed an application for grant of quarrying lease for building stone on 13.12.2005 for a term of 5 years over an extent of 5.00 acres falling in Survey No.83 situated at Sugganahalli Village, Ramanagara Taluk, Ramanagara District [now identified in Bengaluru South District]. The petitioner's application was rejected by respondent No.4 in terms of an order dated 14.02.2007. 3. A plain reading of the said order indicates that the petitioner's application was rejected on the ground that the villagers had objected to the same. They had pointed out that if the mining is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50333-DB WP No. 36012 of 2025 carried out in the said area, the crops standing on the neighbouring land would get damaged. Additionally there was a Government Lake and an ancient temple located in the vicinity of the land in question and the same would also suffer damages, in the event any mining activity was carried out on the subject land. 4. Aggrieved by the order rejecting the petitioner's application for mining lease, the petitioner preferred a revision petition under Section 53(1) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 [the Rules] on 01.08.2007, that is after a delay of approximately two months. The said revision petition continued to be pending and it does not appear that the petitioner took any steps to expedite the same. The said petition came to be rejected in terms of the impugned order dated 13.09.2024. 5. A plain reading of the impugned order indicates that hearing of the revision petition was scheduled on 02.11.2010 and the Petitioner had not appeared. However, further hearing was also held on 16.02.2024 and necessary enquiries were undertaken. The authority found that a letter seeking no objection was sent to the Deputy Commissioner. However, the Deputy Commissioner had in his letter dated 03.06.2006, said that if mining is carried out, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50333-DB WP No. 36012 of 2025 damage would be caused to the neighbouring land and crops. The Deputy Commissioner also pointed out that there was an ancient temple near the area and a government lake which would get damaged. 6. After considering the above, the Revisional Authority rejected the revision petition inter-alia on the ground that the same is not eligible for consideration under the Rules as amended in 2016- 2023. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner earnestly contended that the petitioner's application was pending and therefore in terms of Rule 8-A and 8-B of the Rules as amended in 2023, the pending applications are required to be considered. We find no merit in the aforesaid contention. As apparent from the facts narrated hereinabove that the petitioner's application for quarrying lease was rejected vide Order No.GABHOOE:UNIKA: KAGAGU:269/2006-07/10597 on 14.02.2007. Thus the petitioner's application could not be considered as pending on that date. 8. The petitioner relies on Rule 8-B of the Rules as amended with effect from 17.03.2023. In terms of sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50333-DB WP No. 36012 of 2025 the Rules, all applications seeking for grant of lease, prior to the date of commencement of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2016 would become eligible for grant of mining lease. 9. However, since the petitioner's application had already been rejected, the same could not be considered as pending on the date on which the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2016 come into force. That is on 12.08.2016. We find no infirmity with the impugned order. Petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE KMV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8