- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24238-DB RP No. 152 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA REVIEW PETITION NO. 152 OF 2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4816 OF 2026 (GM-MM-S) BETWEEN: 1. SRI HAROON K S/O MOOSA KANHI AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO. 12 BHYARI MELENSIA KANKANADI MANGALORE - 575 002 …PETITIONER (BY SRI SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY MULTI STORIED BUILDING DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001 2. SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY GROUND FLOOR, PRAJA SOUDHA MANGALURU DAKSHINA KANNADA - 575 007 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VEERENDRA KUMAR K M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24238-DB RP No. 152 of 2026 THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 25.02.2026 IN W.P.NO.4816/2026 ANNEXURE-A & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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 review petitioner has filed the present review petition, inter alia, seeking review of the order dated 25.02.2026 passed by this Court in W.P.No.4816/2026 (GM-MM-S) on the ground that this Court had not considered that the petitioner had already filed a report regarding controlled blasting in the year 2018. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner had made an unambiguous and an unequivocal statement before this Court on 25.02.2026 that notwithstanding the earlier report, the petitioner would furnish a fresh report. This is also recorded in the order, the review of which is sought. On the basis of the said - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24238-DB RP No. 152 of 2026 statement, the writ petition was disposed of, by the said order, which was dictated in Court. 3. It does appear that the present review petition has been filed only because the review petitioner seeks to resile from the statement made before this Court. It was open for the review petitioner to candidly state so. However, the present review petition is camouflaged on the premise that this Court had not considered that a report had been furnished earlier. 4. In view of the above, we find no grounds to review the order. 5. The review petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE KMV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 20