IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED 11415 THE 15*" DAY OF 3uLv 2999
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. 9.0. DINAKARAAN, CHIEF*v£!..'l:JjS1"'1VIV..C'EE,V _:"
AND
THE I-!ON'BLE MR.3usTicE v.é;eaSA3HAm;Ta.rvEV 5;
way APPEAL NO.339 _V(GxM--.-.~J:I_:I~»I'-s):
Between: ' -. ,
IVE/s. R.C.India , 'V A
No.1277, 1" phase I
8"' cross,
J.P.Nagar
Bangalore 2 _
Representegi by-its' b ' -
Partner Sri NijaI.ingeg0'wdaE' ....Appe|fant
(By Sri Ma r_1jur1at~h VK.VV.',-. Atmjcéte)
1'.-.S'ta.t'e of 'i<Zarr1ata'i<a
C'QrT'}.FT!E§F€vF§"-8; Infitjstries Department,
M.S..B'ui£ding7,f_
Dr.A'mberjk'a-r«~Road,
TBangaIo.re=._560 G01.
Represented by its
- _ v~Secre'i:ary to Government,
_' ._SS_I Mines 8: Geotogy.
2. The Director
Department of Mines & Geology,
Government of Karnataka
Khanija Bhavana
No.49, Race Course Road,
Bangalore 560 001.
3. Ms.8apuji (SC) Gramdodyoga
Kaigarika Sahakara Sangha Ltd.
No.2203/192,
Medar's Block,
Mandi Mohalli, Mysore
Represented by its
President. '.--.._Resp.ondents
(By Sri Basavaraj Karreddy,' Sri S.Shekar
Shetty, Advocate for.R3) -- V
This:'i'Writ'--.é§ppea}Vi"' iiS'~..VVfiiedéidundéer Section 4 of the
Karnataka to set~aside the order
passed in the"V.\.iVritv Petit'ioi:.. ':NQ's'..21821/2004 and 21053/2004
dated 1o..o1..A2oo7.t_,V%W "
wrist..t_appe'ai~~e~«rning up for final disposal this day,
SABlj!'AHI'!'_v3~.%,*deiiv'ered the fo||owing:-
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the petitioner in
No.21821/2004 being aggrieved by the order .o_f””‘th’ev
Single Judge dated 10″‘ January 20Ci7WVdec!1_n’itng-:’t-o:_”itn_teVrfere7
with the order dated 14″‘ May 2064
respondent cancelling the lease in” writ
petitioner–appellant hereiri and ‘.idi’re’cti’n:C§”‘i’-thatlAainotification
shall be issued under Rule Minor Mineral
Concession Rules, that if such
notification is petitioner to make an
appEication:’ifo’r’grant étheauthority shall entertain
the applicat.ion.’. of the said notification
issued under Ru’:-eV’8~–.A’;of”t_he’~”l{MMC Rules and consider those
,applAicai”:i_o:nsy_’–.tin eii_accord’a’nce with Rule 11 and dispose of the
same’-on”me~rjts..an_d”–i.n accordance with law.
23;. appellant herein filed Writ Petition
it”gf7:§ie,V218.21/20o4 being aggrieved by the order dated 14″‘ May
2’Q~__04._VVp’a’ssed by the first respondent–St:ate of Karnataka,
\,.J>
4
Commerce & Industries Department, represented by its
Secretary to Government, SS1 Mines 8: Geology.
2.2. It is averred in the petition that the petitionerf”,–is”‘a,
small scale industry having its industry at
Somanahalli Industriai Area, Madciur.:i’or–.,Gra’_nite”‘pwrocessiyng, it
and polishing industry and having
issued by the Industries and De’palrtm’e,n’t’;’~ “The ” ‘
petitioner made an application fo,r——grant*~-.of quarryingi licence
at Sy.No.1, Block No.235 of’Punjan,tfi’rjvil’lavge,:Chamarajanagar
Taluk and Districtvtoian e:;<tVe'nt':oifvv'VThe petitioner's
aPl3lication'l"vva's bv«"_"Vt'§'ie4 first respondent by
foilowing theprocedure_'co.nte.nteplated under the Karnataka
Minor Mineral lCon'cess–ioAn-._'R'ules, 1994 (for short hereinafter
,\.i-refeyrrediogas '?_iAthe 3″; respondent»
M/s,BG§<sS.:; 3 and further, held that
notification under Rule 8-A of the
KMMC Rtiyyllelsayfor conslderatiion of grant of quarrying lease and
and the 3"' respondent–M/s.BGKSSE.
are their applications for consideration of
grant of”‘c1_ua*–rn/ing lease.
being aggrieved by the said order dated 14″‘ May
2’_Q'{)4v-rpasseci by the 1″ respondent, Writ petition
‘<31'
No.21821/2004 was filed by the petitioner–appei|ant herein
seeking quashing of the said order contending that'-.gno
notification was required under Rule 8-13. of the
the iand was available for grant of quarrying _and'~..th'e_retore,'at
the order passed by the 15' responcientiiis:iiiiegal 'is
to be set-aside. V» _4 A. 1 V 1
2.5. The said writ petition Na. ;ia2i;2go4wattiiiibbed
with Writ Petition No.21o5.3,*2po4=wihiittiviia.sygriiéaiby third
respondent in Writ Petitiofj '– i.e. by
M/s.BGi<SSL chaiiyesi-ig..iVij1g the vet; saxrn1e_"–ordVe'ridated 14"' May
2004 passe'di"'byaA.:t1ne aggrieved by the"
finding thatythe' reinewaiil'v4..aip..o|ti.cation of the said society
M/s.BGKSVS_E. was»notpendingfonsideration.
The iearne'd"Si'n'g|e Judge after hearing the learned
Sentii_or»v4a;a;bejaring for the petitioner in both the writ
— Vr/.,,..«petitiorisywand. ‘iearned Government Pieader appearing for
–.]”_j’jg.-respondentajii and 2 and the learned Senior counsei
for the contesting respondent, by order dated 10″‘
. Jaénuary 2007, heid that the iease granted in favour of the writ
K3
petitioner—-the appellant herein was not valid as the same had
not been passed after issuing notification under Rule 8.-~;4\> of
the KMMC Rules and therefore, the impugned order
the 1″ respondent cancelling the lease in
petitioner granted on 03.09.2001, wa-sj’u’stif§e-d analeaeainieaii,
to interfere with the said order and
order passed by the 15′ respo:n”dent,.V’ w.herejivn,R”‘:vvgthe1″ it
respondent had ordered to issue gno’tifi:§Catit:e.n’ undéer’iRu’e 8–A of
the KMMC Rules. The learned’ also permitted
both the petitionertjarnd in the writ
petition, who is;aloofiiiiti’t_oetiiti.o’negr’ij iniiw..d:>.No.21053/2004, to
make application AVpu”i’sti_:a’iw_t’to:’th_enotification to be issued and
directed therespondentéautiiority to consider the same in
avccordagnee with Rziiedi of: KMMC Rules.
Be_iVng”l’ag’g.rieved by the said order of the learned
ll”»..,.v.Single’J__udge_ 10″‘ January 2007, the petitioner in Writ
–e_l.i’_j;P,etition No*._2u_§:.821/2004 has preferred this writ appeal.
\.3
3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and the learned Government Pieader appeavri.n’g_:’_foVr
respondents-1 and 2 and the learned counsel
the 3′” respondent.
4. The learned counsel appearingfor
submitted that there was no nece’ssVi’ty for notéiviiiealtion
under Rule 8-A of the Ki\iM.(; Rull’es”.Va’shtgheA.leasegranted in
favour of the third respondent’_in’jthe has been
quashed by the P.G.R.Sindhia’s
case and when for quarrying, no
notificationowasiiregulired the learned Single
Judge oughttto_ petition and was not
justified in uph’olc;l’in.gV’;.the_l lrapugned order dated 14″‘ May
,f2VGD_4 p駒se;_;ii.:b\,
10
cancellation of lease in favour of the petitioner-appellant was
justified.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the 3″‘ respondent
submitted that the learned Single Judge was not__ju’sti«fi_e’d__V5:n:1
upholding the finding that notification has to ” -».
Rule 8-A of the KMMC Rules.
7. We have given our careful ‘con’siderati-end’: to fthe
contentions of the learned counse’ll’*a:ppearing.foirijtheg parties
and scrutinised the materialon re.5_cord,l” A
8. The grecfora would clearly show that the
3?” respondenrtgjfhereirfi admittedly was granted
quarryingfleasef for a period of five years from
the 3′” respondent had filed application for
renewa-l’.__of ~gra’nted on 16.3.1978. However, in view of
the améndm:ent’:””to the provisions of Rule 3(A) of the KMMC
Rules, 1969 denying quarrying of Black Granite
to-__ah.y”persons other than public sector enterprise, the lease
if granted in favour of M/s.BGKSSL was cancelled. However, the
kfii}
11
said Rule was struck down as unconstitutional in Writ Petition
No.10224/1991 and thereafter, lease was granted in respect
of Black Granite and accordingly, IVE/s.BGKSSL alsoygginadej-.a’n.,
application for grant of mining lease and the same \rvas”s-alllsofl it
granted. However, all the 203 leases~g’rante&d7__weVrei’lsetaasildeg
bv the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case”
consequently, the lease grantedVirmjfas/,our.V’of.. also it
stood set–aside. The 1″Vrespond-e’ri:t,e_:”lafter thileinatvter was
remitted by this Court in heard
the learned counsei.fpr_thegpetit:ione’r~?.a:n_d:v’th§eVv’Vl’earned counsel
for the 3″ of Mines and Geology
and passeda _deta’jiil”ed.._forderl_«d.ated-‘ 14″‘ May 2004, which was
impugned the learned Single Judge
has cIea_;r|ys..held as the land in respect of which
:’a.ppl’icat_.iori_:’wasA”§iVled by the writ petitioner was held by
M/sl,”BG’KSi5lL,Tthye would not become available for grant,
unless n”otif5–.cat’io’n is issued under Rule 8~–A of KMMC Rules as
was previously held by M/s.BGKSSL and therefore,
tl,heg.ra’nt”of lease in favour of the petitioner~appeilant was not
it §us’tifi’ed and negatived the contention of the learned counsel
\9</'1
12
for the appellant that no notification was required to be issued
under Rule 8–A of the KMMC Rules.
9. In Writ Petition No.927’6/2008, this Division<j'Be_'i1cl1,,,<
by a detailed order dated 30"' March 2009, has R'
provisions of Rule 8-A, 8A(1), 8-B, 9,.1~1v and Rx
Rules and has held that the State
notify in the official gazette as availaclil,iAty.: o'i?,Vl'a'r*i'd"jfor " V
grant and merely the areas no-tifi:c'ati'o~n_ mentioned under
Rules 8–A (1) (a) (b) and (c')'l'o'f Rules is notified, it
does not automatic:a:l'l'-,I._'me_aVn':'tii:at ,:'L'l'1.é.,I':Ell'l(Il':3:, fvvhich were not
governed underixRu"i.es_::'8~A'~{ii')..__(a) (b) and (c) of the KMMC
Rules need notlble notif'i'ed ..fo'r.i,grant in the official gazette and
therefore,' the app'i'icatiVon for grant of quarry lease of area not
V"notifIedW'as'.Aav,ailable for lease can still be rejected as
premat-ure "an'd.,_it'isnecessary to issue notification under Rule
R8-;-A of the Rules. In the said judgment, it is held thus:
A The combined reading of Rules 8-A, 8»
H9, 11 and 12 of the KMMC Rules, makes it
'"°clear that said provisions provide for
\9l/Q
13
transparency in the matter of grant of quarry
lease, affording an opportunity to all the
Dersons interested to make applications.
other interpretation to mean that no notifica_t–ibn’ *’
is required for the grant of virgin quarry,_..’.Mo_:u~3.dV
only lead to unreasonable and a9*bitrai”,’._e«xerci–se«_
of power attracting Article 14 of the :C_o’nstiltutfi’on, , ”
of India, and therefore tlheksamlev. has
discouraged, because it would-._be _difficu|tflfor a,
person interested to ‘rave ‘know-ledge._,as tolthex
availability of land forugra’nt”of,§’t’leaseawi.th’out any
notification, unlevss siuth..i:nteI’ested’V’_pe”rso’n has
links with .ha~§§*~-gources to
acquire the . “‘E?)§ce’pt”:,,«wii_ere the State
proposeultoi’ the:’_’vappi_ica’tions on priority
prescribed_ (i) to (vi), in all
other circL_;rnsta’n.ce’s,” where the selection
ofgggthe. appli.c_ations’ fall under ‘all others’
‘ca”£éQCi’r’y “a.ttracting”Rule 12(1) (vi), the only
‘ .’reason.ablé’i’§’p’tion would be to notify the area
if’av’ai’lavbI’e7j:..fo:r” public auction for want of
gu’:’–delE.nes”‘in the Rules to give priority among
fall others’. The power conferred under rule 8–B
A .ofl”t~he Rules has to be exercised with the close
cproflximity to the desired public interest to
” -“augment more revenue to the State. Therefore,
\\),t./°>
14
the contention advanced on behalf of the 9″‘
respondent and the lease granting authorit\,.>’_”‘~«i:’_”‘– A’
that only in the case of Rule 8–A(1) (a), (b)’_.a;n’d’ ‘
(c), the Government is required to.t._,ivss.uVe:.A.:’
notification regarding availability””of.th’e areas in
and that the lands which are notco’vered<°und.egr
Rule 8-A(1) (a), (b) and (cf)-are thevirgint.I§jn..d's._i_H Q?
and such virgin lands are'"available'"fongrant
without notification, ouri'c'uns_side'red opir1'ion',
is nothing but 2'ill.ogic'a_lV and
irrational." '
10. In View pri’nci,ol:es:.i’laAid ‘down by this Division
Bench in to above, and having
regard to th-effects’and_ijV*circ~un1«st’ances of the case, it is clear
that thegthere is the contention of the learned
nseiffortheuappelllavntithat no notification is required to be
issued__u’hder..,i§dlie.35A of the KMMC Rules and the impugned
L V”-~t’»order’Ap.aVssed.–ijv’the 15’ respondent dated 3.4.5.2004 was
-«.c’.jjv»-vT§g’Jl’i-UV upheld? by the learned Single Judge and therefore, the
s~agi’dV’.”o~rd’e}’ of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from
antyheirror or irreguiarity as to call for interference in this
KM
15
intra court appeal. Accordingly, we hold that there is no
merit in this appeal and pass the foiiowing:
ORDER
E
The writ appeal is dismissed.
‘ffilliei l3’1I.1$’l~’1V’3%9fF’
Index: \ A
swab h0St: Xe?/No
1’a_ l