Gomatesh Granites Near Fort, Represented By Its GPA HOLDER Sri G. B. Subramanya S/O G. R. Bhaskar v. State Of Karnataka Represented By Its Secretary, Department Of Commerce And Industries (Msme & Mines) Vikasa Soudha Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi Bangalore
2021-04-06
ABHAY S.OKA, JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
body2021
DigiLaw.ai
ORDER : Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents-State. 2. A quarrying lease under the provisions of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short, "the said Rules of 1994") was granted to the petitioner on 30th November, 2001 for a period of twenty years. A copy of the said lease is at Annexure-A. Only prayer made in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for grant of deemed extension of the period of lease in accordance with sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-A of the said Rules of 1994. 3. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that as per sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-A of the said Rules of 1994, the petitioner is entitled to quarrying lease for a period of thirty years from the date of the original grant. 4. The learned Additional Government Advocate invited our attention to the provisions of the Granite Conservation Development Rules, 1999 (for short, "the said Rules of 1999"), being Central Rules framed in exercise of the powers under Section 18 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, "the said Act of 1957") and submitted that the same would prevail over the said Rules of 1994. 5. We have considered the submissions. Rule 52 of the said Rules of 1999 lays down that the provisions of the rules framed by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred under Section 15 of the said Act of 1957 shall be applicable to the extent they are not repugnant or inconsistent with the said Rules of 1999. 6.
5. We have considered the submissions. Rule 52 of the said Rules of 1999 lays down that the provisions of the rules framed by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred under Section 15 of the said Act of 1957 shall be applicable to the extent they are not repugnant or inconsistent with the said Rules of 1999. 6. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-A of the said Rules of 1994 reads thus: "8-A. Periods for which Quarrying Lease, Licence or Prospecting Licence may be granted: (1) … (2) All the quarrying leases or licenses granted before the commencement of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2016, shall be deemed to have been granted for a period of thirty years in respect of specified minor minerals and for a period of twenty years in respect of non-specified minor minerals from the date of its original grant." In the case of a specified minor mineral (which will include granite), the period of lease as provided under sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-A of the said Rules of 1994 is thirty years from the date of its original grant. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of the said Rules of 1999 provides that the maximum period for which lease may be granted shall not exceed thirty years. Thus, there is no repugnancy between the said Rules of 1994 and the said Rules of 1999. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to a deemed extension as provided under sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-A of the said Rules of 1994. 7. Accordingly, we pass the following order : ORDER (i) We hold that the period of lease granted to the petitioner under quarrying lease No.480 dated 30th November, 2001 shall be thirty years from 30th November, 2001; (ii) We direct the respondents to execute a supplementary deed of lease in favour of the petitioner within a period of two months from today; (iii) The petition is accordingly disposed of.