- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4191-DB WP No. 1618 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 1618 OF 2026 (GM-MM_S) BETWEEN: RACHAN KUMAR M S/O. H.V. MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O. SRI MARUTHI MANSION, CHIKKAJALA, BENGALURU-560157. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVA KUMAR K B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SECRETARY COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, (MSME AND MINES), VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, NO. 49, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.S. HARISH, GA) Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4191-DB WP No. 1618 of 2026 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER NO.CL 20 MRC 2015 DATED 22/09/2021 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND 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 22.09.2021 passed by respondent No.1 in the revision petition filed by the petitioner. 2. A plain reading of the impugned order indicates that the petitioner had filed the said revision petition impugning the communication dated 28.05.2011, whereby the application of the petitioner for quarry lease was rejected by accepting the recommendations of the Rule 11 Committee. Respondent No.1 held that the said revision petition is not maintainable as it was against the decision of the State Government and a revision under - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4191-DB WP No. 1618 of 2026 Rule 53 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 did not lie against a decision of the State Government. 3. The petitioner has filed the present petition after an inordinate delay of nearly 5 years. As noted above, the present petition, in effect, seeks to assail the State Government's decision to reject the petitioner's application, on 28.05.2011. 4. In view of the given facts and the inordinate delay, we do not consider it apposite to entertain the present petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE BS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8