- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30124-DB WP No. 22578 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH 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. 22578 OF 2024 (GM-MM-S) BETWEEN: 1. M/S TULASI ENTERPRISES NO.27/1, TULASI KAILASH NAGAR VASANTAPURA MAIN ROAD KONANKUNTE CROSS BENGALURU - 560 062 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER P. MURTHY PARTNER P. MUNIRAJU …PETITIONER (BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI AVINASH GOWDA G.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE VIKASA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001 2. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001 Digitally signed by K P SWETHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30124-DB WP No. 22578 of 2024 3. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU - 560 001 4. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU RURAL - 560 001 5. THE TAHSILDAR OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU SOUTH DIVISION BENGALURU - 560 034 6. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST BENGALURU RURAL BENGALURU - 560 001 7. N. PRAMOD SON OF NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER MAJOR NO.290, 4TH MAIN ROAD, IST BLOCK KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 034 …RESPONDENTS (BY MS. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-6 & SRI K.P. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-7 [ABSENT]) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.05.2022 PASSED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT BEARING No: GA BHU E/EBHUEV/BENAG/ KAGAGU/2022-23/919-212022-23/919/21 PRODUCED HEREIN ABOVE AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30124-DB WP No. 22578 of 2024 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 petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 06.05.2022 passed by Respondent No. 3, Senior Geologist, rejecting the petitioner's application for grant of a quarry lease. 2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the petitioner had filed an application dated 05.08.2011 seeking a quarry lease for the extraction of building stone over land measuring 6 acres, comprising Survey No. 130 of Dodderi Village, Bengaluru South Taluk. It is stated that the said land was Gomal land and was available for quarrying building stone. Prior to the said date, respondent No.7 had also filed an application seeking a quarry lease over the same land (6 acres in Survey No.130), which was rejected on 08.08.2011 on the ground that he had not furnished the necessary documents. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30124-DB WP No. 22578 of 2024 3. A joint survey was conducted, and a report dated 08.12.2011 was furnished indicating no objection to the grant of a quarry lease as sought by the petitioner. Subsequently, on 21.02.2012, respondent No.6 (Deputy Conservator of Forests) issued a no- objection letter for the grant of a quarry lease in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner's application was processed, and the quarry lease was granted. A notification dated 07.11.2012 in Form- GL was issued in accordance with Rule 27 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 [KMMC Rules]. 4. The petitioner did not furnish the environment clearance certificate within the stipulated time; therefore, the quarry lease was not executed within the stipulated period. Since the quarry lease was not executed within the time prescribed, respondent No.3 issued an order dated 05.06.2013 cancelling the quarry lease. 5. The petitioner preferred a revision petition (R.P.No.67/2013) before the Revisional Authority, essentially seeking condonation of delay in furnishing the environmental clearance certificate, which the petitioner states was received, but not within the prescribed period for executing the quarry lease deed. The said revision - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30124-DB WP No. 22578 of 2024 petition was disposed of by an order dated 07.10.2016 directing the competent authority to consider the petitioner's application. 6. At this stage, a controversy had also arisen on account of the application for quarry lease made by respondent No. 7. The said application was rejected on 08.08.2011. However, he also preferred a revision petition on 28.02.2012, which is also referred to by the Revisional Authority in its order dated 07.10.2016. Respondent No.7 also claimed that he had been granted the quarry lease over the subject land by a grant notification dated 23.06.2007. 7. The Revisional Authority directed the competent authority to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his grievances. Further, directed that the application be disposed of as per rules in accordance with the Amendment Notification dated 12.08.2016. This Court is also informed that the revision petition preferred by respondent No.7 was also disposed of in somewhat similar terms. 8. The competent authority considered the petitioner's application pursuant to the orders passed by the Revisional Authority. The competent authority noted that as on the date of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30124-DB WP No. 22578 of 2024 application (05.08.2011), respondent no. 7’s application was pending and had not been rejected. Thus, there was no provision under the KMMC Rules to proceed with another application during the pendency of an earlier application for the same area. The competent authority also noted that the area in question was registered as a claimed area under Rule 8A of the KMMC Rules on 08.07.2004, and there was no record of the said area being notified. 9. There is no doubt that Respondent No.7 had applied for the same area as the competent authority had issued a sketch as notified under Rule 8A of the KMMC Rules by a Government Order dated 23.06.2007, and the sketch was identical to the sketch issued by the competent authority on 07.11.2012. 10. In view of the above, the competent authority passed an order inter alia rejecting the impugned order furnished by the petitioner. 11. Mr Vikram Huilgol, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, does not contest the finding that the petitioner's - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30124-DB WP No. 22578 of 2024 application for grant of quarry lease was not maintainable, as the area was already registered as a claimed area under Rule 8A of the KMMC Rules. The said area had not been notified, and no notification had been issued for inviting applications for the sanction of a quarry lease under Rule 8A of the KMMC Rules. Thus, the petitioner's application for the applied area was not maintainable. 12. In the aforesaid view, we find no infirmity with the impugned order, rejecting the petitioner's application for the grant of quarry lease. The present petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE AT/KPS, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22