Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri Maheshappa Bommappa Gubbi, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. The petitioner had applied for a quarrying lease on 15 June 2013 under the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994. The sole prayer in the petition was for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents (the State of Karnataka, the Director/Commissioner of Mines and Geology, and the Senior Geologist) to decide that pending application. The court noted that the application was pending as of 12 August 2016, and by virtue of sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B of the 1994 Rules, the application had been rendered ineligible. However, the court observed that the petitioner's case must be considered in the context of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B, in light of the principles laid down in paragraph 47 of a previous judgment and order dated 16 August 2019 in Writ Petition No.10601/2019 and connected matters. The court heard the petitioner's counsel and issued notice to the respondents, with the learned Additional Government Advocate accepting notice. The court then disposed of the petition with directions: the respondents were directed to decide the pending application (Annexure-A) within three months, applying the principles of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B as interpreted in the earlier judgment. The order was passed by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Nataraj Rangaswamy.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Direction to Decide Pending Application - Petitioner sought mandamus to direct respondents to decide his application for quarrying lease dated 15.06.2013 under the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 - The application was pending on 12.08.2016 and thus rendered ineligible under sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B - However, the court directed consideration under sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B in light of paragraph 47 of the judgment dated 16.08.2019 in Writ Petition No.10601/2019 - Held that the respondents must decide the application within three months, applying the principles of sub-rule (2) (Paras 4-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents should be directed to decide the petitioner's pending application for quarrying lease dated 15.06.2013 in light of Rule 8-B of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 and the judgment in Writ Petition No.10601/2019.
Final Decision
The petition is disposed of with directions to the respondents to decide the pending application at Annexure-A within three months from the date of the order, in the light of paragraph 47 of the judgment dated 16.08.2019 in Writ Petition No.10601/2019 and other connected matters, in the context of applicability of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994.
Law Points
- Writ of mandamus
- Quarrying lease
- Pending application
- Rule 8-B Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1994
- Sub-rule (2) applicability
Case Details
2020 LawText (KAR) (07) 44
Writ Petition No.4704 of 2020 (GM-MMS)
Abhay S. Oka, Chief Justice, Nataraj Rangaswamy, Justice
Sri. Prakash B.S. for petitioner, Sri. I. Tharanath Poojary, AGA for respondents
Sri. Maheshappa Bommappa Gubbi
The State of Karnataka, The Director / Commissioner, Department of Mines and Geology, The Senior Geologist, Department of Mines and Geology
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to decide the petitioner's pending application for quarrying lease.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to decide his application for quarrying lease dated 15.06.2013.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's application for quarrying lease dated 15.06.2013 under the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 was pending and not decided by the respondents.
Previous Decisions
The application was pending on 12.08.2016 and rendered ineligible under sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B of the said Rules. The court referred to paragraph 47 of the judgment dated 16.08.2019 in Writ Petition No.10601/2019 and other connected matters.
Issues
Whether the respondents should be directed to decide the petitioner's pending application for quarrying lease dated 15.06.2013 in light of Rule 8-B of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 and the judgment in Writ Petition No.10601/2019.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner's counsel argued for a direction to decide the application.
Respondents' counsel (AGA) took notice but no detailed submissions recorded.
Ratio Decidendi
A pending application for quarrying lease that has become ineligible under sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 must still be considered under sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B in light of the principles laid down in paragraph 47 of the judgment in Writ Petition No.10601/2019.
Judgment Excerpts
An application was made by the petitioner for grant of quarrying lease on 15th June 2013 under the provisions of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994.
As the said application was pending on 12th August 2016, in view of sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B of the said Rules of 1994, the said application has been rendered ineligible.
However, the case of the petitioner will have to be considered in the context of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B in the light of what is held in paragraph 47 of the judgment and order dated 16th August 2019 in Writ Petition No.10601/2019 and other connected matters.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition on an unspecified date. The petition came up for preliminary hearing through video conferencing on 06.07.2020. The court heard the petitioner's counsel, issued notice to respondents, and the AGA took notice. The court then disposed of the petition with directions.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
- Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994: Rule 8-B, sub-rule (1), sub-rule (2)
