- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25372-DB WP No. 3176 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.3176 OF 2026 (GM-MM_S) BETWEEN: SRI. N. SHIVALINGAIAH S/O. LATE NINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT K.H. NAGAR, NEAR ST. ANNAS CONVENT ROAD, MADDUR TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 428. …PETITIONER (BY SRI BHAT GANAPATHY 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 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. 3. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, MANDYA TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.S. HARISH, PRL. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by C K LATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25372-DB WP No. 3176 of 2026 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY APPROPRIATE ORDER OR DIRECTION BY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11/06/2021, AS PER ANNEXURE-C, AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER WITHIN STIPULATED TIME 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 MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The learned Principal Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 2. The petitioner has filed the present petition inter alia praying that directions be issued to respondent No.3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 11.06.2021 and pass appropriate orders within the stipulated time. 3. The petitioner's father was granted a quarry lease in respect of land measuring 2 acres falling in Sy. Nos. 317 and 308 situated at K.Honnalagere Village, Maddur Taluk, Mandya District. The said lease was for quarrying building stone (a minor mineral). The initial term of the said lease was 5 years which expired on 29.10.2006. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25372-DB WP No. 3176 of 2026 The petitioner submitted an application for extension of quarry lease, which was granted in the year 2009 for a further period of 5 years with retrospective effect from 30.10.2006; that is, from the date on which the term of the original lease expired. The extended lease expired in the year 2011. However, prior to that the petitioner applied for further renewal of the lease for a period of 20 years. The concerned authorities extended the lease for a period of 20 years from the date of grant of the original lease, that is, from 30.10.2001, in terms of Rule 8A of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 ['the Rules']. The said period expired on 29.10.2021. 4. The petitioner filed an application seeking an extension of the quarry lease for a period of 8 years, 1 month, and 27 days on the ground that the grant of renewal of the lease was delayed by the said period. The petitioner thereafter filed a writ petition, being W.P.15743/2021 (GM-MM/S), before this Court, inter alia, contending that the quarry lease was required to be granted for a period of 20 years from the date of renewal, and not from the date of the original grant. The Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said petition by an order dated 01.09.2021. The Court rejected - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25372-DB WP No. 3176 of 2026 the contention that the lease was required to be granted from the date of renewal and not from the date of original grant by referring to the express language of Rule 8A of the Rules. Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court [SLP (C) No. 16780/2021]. 5. The Supreme Court granted leave in the said petition and disposed of the appeal by an order dated 21.11.2023. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's claim that the lease was to be renewed for 20 years from the date of renewal. At that stage, the petitioner raised the issue of his representation dated 11.06.2021. The petitioner claimed that he had made the said representation seeking extension of the quarry licence for a period of 8 years, 1 month, and 27 days on the ground that the quarry lease had been renewed belatedly and therefore no quarrying activities could be conducted during the period commencing from the expiry of the term of the lease and its subsequent renewal. The Supreme Court did not express any opinion regarding the petitioner’s entitlement to such alternate relief, which was sought by the petitioner. However, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue his representation before the competent authority. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25372-DB WP No. 3176 of 2026 6. The relevant extract of the order of the Supreme Court is set out below : "5. In view of the aforesaid provisions, which the respondents have applied uniformly, we find no merit in the appellant's claim for renewal of the lease for 20 years from the date of such renewal. 6. Faced with this, learned counsel for the appellant refers to the representation purported to have been submitted by the appellant on 11.06.2021, wherein he sought an extension of the Quarrying Licence for a period of 8 years, 1 month and 27 days on the ground that the quarrying activities remained closed for no fault of his during the period, firstly from 2006-2009 and, again, from 2011- 2017. It is stated that one of the prayers made in the writ petition filed before the High Court was to issue a mandamus to the authorities to consider the said representation in which the above stated alternative prayer was made. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we do not express any opinion in relation to the alternative relief now pressed on behalf of the appellant, as no such issue appears to have been raised before the High Court. We grant liberty to the appellant to pursue his representation in this regard before the competent authority. 8. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly." 7. The petitioner has filed the present petition on the strength of the said order and prays that his representation be considered. 8. The learned Principal Government Advocate contested the said prayer. He submits that the Supreme Court merely granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue his representation. However, the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25372-DB WP No. 3176 of 2026 petitioner had taken no steps to do so. He also submits that, at this belated stage, the expired quarry lease cannot be resurrected. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we consider it apposite to dispose of the present petition by directing the respondents to communicate its decision regarding the petitioner's representation within a period of 8 weeks from the date of this order. We, however, clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the said representation. The competent authority is also not precluded from examining the question whether there has been any delay in pursuing the representation pursuant to the liberty granted by the Supreme Court and the consequences of such delay. 10. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE CKL List No.: 2 Sl No.: 25