IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2009
PRESENT "
TI-IE HODPBLE MR. P D DINAKARAN, CHIEF Q'
AND
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE "
WRIT PE'I'I'I'ION No.315S9T:/:':_2_908V. IGM» k
IFBETWEEN:
M/s.Charan Minerals
No.25, 9*-h Cross, E{_uma;:'a'Pa1j'k 'West, 'V " "
Bangaiore--20, its
Managing Pa1"t.1-3.cr;A;jVS--_'R&:1jit; f V .. Petitioner
(By Ms. ~ 1% [9
1. Statéof %
Byits Séczretaxy,
V .» I)epa.*tmcnt~ af__I_1__1(i1,1st1'i<3s and
' 'L'{',o1'rTi:né:x:c,
% M Bfixé.1tii.11_g.,
Béanggcmsw 001.
_2. A Mines & Geolog/,
Department of Mines & Gesologr,
.. _K11em'ija Bhavan,
" V 'Race Course Road,
' Bangalore-560 O01. .. Respondents
% ~(m/sri Basavaraj Karreddy, Govt. Adv.)
This w. P. is filed under Article 226 of
India, praying to quash the impugled orcierv
No.GaBhuE/GaGuSha/ 1422 MML 04/07-03,/11956 dated i V’
29.11.2007/18.12.2007 passed by “the A2315?’ respandent at
A1mexun=:-E and declare by issue=_of Zappwpriate
order that the 11otifica.fioI1 bea1’ing”No’.._CI 214;.)/IMM”
dated 9.2.2007 is bad in 1aw»’or__ a1tei*11eia:ive1_::,”‘ti&:e’_V same as’ u
in application to the facts of theaepresent’ case em.d”‘direct ‘
the State Government to eonsiderv and ‘mining lease
in favour of petitioner p1,_1rsuz-.1iit’ete application dated
8.12.2004 (Armexure-A):-. _
This W.P com 1’ng:upv:.for ‘Realm’ g before
Court this day, following:
for tguashing of the
order de;te§i<– 2V9; passed by the 234
responedent,i"i3i1_fecter of iiiiines & Geologz, Department of
as per Armexure-E to the
i»+:~it.péz:t§oxi. i'
2. W1′: is .i’ai%erred in the writ petition that on
the 211*! respondent issued a notice
Rule 26(1) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960
‘:’_4″‘(hei*eirxa1ter referred to as Rules’), calling upon the
” ” eefifioner to submit his reply as to Why his application
\?~J5
should not be rejected on the gound that there a;’e.}:~even
other applications filed earlier to
which are overlapping on the ” in
mtitioner and that there is no ‘la’bl_e
The petitioner in response to notice on” V it
18.6.2007 contending appiieation for
grant of mining from the
department that there are no
pending and therefore he is
eligible there is no bar for
consideration of and for granting the same.
, it is atrerred that Without affording an
uflto __ the petitioner to substantiate the
co11tenfion..”.’*p:the”sappiication of the petitioner has been
the 2m1 respondent by order dated
a 18.12.2007. However, the order impugned in
we: meeon dated 29.11.2007/13.12.2007 has been
” by the 2’15 respondent rejecting the application of
the petitioner on the wound that no reply has been gven
\.9-0%
V. i*espoz{detits’;’ .. _
to the notice issued under Rule 26(1) of the Rules»
petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said ordelg;
petition is filed contending that is K V’
unsustainable and the 2nd
the impugned order on the V’ 3.ta”t– ‘tjwaste
submitted to the notiee.._issuet:i 2RuA1’e “26{‘i) of the
Rules though the petifiotief his ‘reply on
18.6.2007 anti. the tiéeiggtzlenewledged by the
2116 order is liable to
4. was tile respondents. The learned
Government taken notice on behalf of the
” ‘j_ ‘earned counsel appearing for the
h 44 Tpyetitiolletfi the learned Government Advocate
‘ for the respondents.
‘. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
fsubmitted that in response to the nofice issued under
KW
Rule 26(1) of the Rules, the petitioner submitted hisreply
on 18.6.2007 , which was reoeived in the ofiice of
respondent on 21.6.2007 and despite the
respondent has proceeded to it it
petitioner on the ground that no A’
notice issued under Rule .theA.Ri:xles V
the order passed by tlzegnd is iiiosustainable
and liable to bequasheci.
7. Learned in support of the impugtled V *.2*=*i respondent. 8. to the
contentions? counsel appearing for
both the material on record.
‘t”I%i1e”ii.11e.te;*ia1 would clearly show that the
siaote catavseuvttotioe was issued to the petitioner by the 2nd
2 _responde:1t Rule 26(1) of the Rules as to Why the
i H H ‘T of the petitioner should not be rejected. In
to the said notice, the petitioner has submitted
W
fjBme.
” ‘ ~ ‘v ” ‘” ” index: Yes] No?
18.6.2007, which was received in the office of
respondent on 21.6.2007. Accordingly,
following: .
ORDER \V7″:A
(i) The writ petition is
(ii) The order dated é4 9:.«-11.-éOQ7f:’};_$:12.2007; passed by
the 211*’ respondent and the
matter is the” _.2:’fif1. §ies*pondent for flesh
consideI’atio:i1V..V.of of the petitioner in
aocordaif;ce__ ifhe light of the observations
made in the ‘of
Sd/~
Chief justice
Sdfn
Iucige