Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 2326 (KAR)

Rohit Kiran v. State of Karnataka

2020-12-03

ABHAY S.OKA, PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

body2020
ORDER : 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. 2. Issue notice to the respondents. The learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents. By consent, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 3. A quarrying lease was granted to the petitioner for a non-specified minor mineral for a period of ten years from 27th October, 2005. There was a premature termination of the lease on 24th March, 2010. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition which was allowed on 17th February, 2016. An order was made on 19th July, 2016 giving effect to the order passed in the revision petition and the lease was reinstated up to 26th October, 2015. 4. An application for renewal was filed on 24th November, 2015. By an endorsement dated 14th November, 2017, the said application was rejected on the ground that the application has been made after the expiry of the period of lease. 5. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus for grant of deemed extension in accordance with sub-rule (4) of Rule 8-A of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short "the said Rules of 1994") as amended with effect from 12th August, 2016. By way of an amendment to the writ petition, a prayer has been incorporated for challenging the endorsement dated 14th November, 2017. 6. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is based on a decision of this Court dated 27thAugust, 2019 in W.P. No.8130/2019. His submission is that it is only due to an erroneous order of termination of lease passed by the State Government which was later on set aside, that the petitioner could not apply for renewal within the prescribed time. 7. The learned Additional Government Advocate invited our attention to the last part of sub-rule (4) of Rule 8-A of the said Rules of 1994 and submitted that the petitioner is entitled to automatic extension of lease, provided the conditions mentioned therein are satisfied, including the period of making the application within the time required for filing of such renewal application. The learned Additional Government Advocate invited our attention to the last part of sub-rule (4) of Rule 8-A of the said Rules of 1994 and submitted that the petitioner is entitled to automatic extension of lease, provided the conditions mentioned therein are satisfied, including the period of making the application within the time required for filing of such renewal application. The learned Additional Government Advocate also relied upon Rule 21 of the said Rules of 1994 as it existed prior to 12th August, 2016 which provided that an application for renewal has to be made ninety days before the expiry of the lease and any application made after such expiry cannot be entertained. 8. We have considered the submissions. 9. As pointed out earlier, the lease was originally granted for a period of ten years and was to expire on 26th October, 2015. However, in the year 2010, the lease was terminated. A revision petition fled against the said order was allowed on 17th February, 2016. By order dated 19th July, 2016, the lease was reinstated on the basis of the order passed by the revisional authority. Thus, the lease was reinstated long after the actual expiry of the period of the lease. Therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner to apply for renewal of the lease within ninety days before the expiry of the period of lease. The reason is that the lease stood determined in the year 2010 itself. In fact, the occasion for applying for renewal of lease could not have arisen prior to 2016, or at least, prior to 17th February, 2016 when the revision petition was allowed. The order of cancellation of lease was set aside by the revisional authority and the said order had become final. The State Government has not chosen to challenge the same. It is the illegal order of determination of lease which prevented the petitioner from making the application for renewal of lease within the time stipulated by Rule 21 of the said Rules of 1994. 10. An identical case has been decided by this Court by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 27th August, 2019 passed in Writ Petition No. 8130/2019. For the reasons recorded therein, we pass the following order: ORDER: (i) The impugned order dated 14th November, 2017 is hereby set aside. 10. An identical case has been decided by this Court by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 27th August, 2019 passed in Writ Petition No. 8130/2019. For the reasons recorded therein, we pass the following order: ORDER: (i) The impugned order dated 14th November, 2017 is hereby set aside. (ii) We direct the respondents to consider the application for renewal made by the petitioner on 24th November, 2015 in the light of the observations made in the aforesaid judgment and order dated 27th August, 2019 in the context of sub-rule (4) of Rule 8-A of the said Rules of 1994 within a period of two months from the date on which a copy of this order is made available to the concerned authority. (iii) The petition is disposed of on the above terms.