ORDER : In this petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: “I. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or such appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents to effect extension of the mining lease period for the lost period being the time commencing from the coming into force of the Amendment Act. II. Issue such other relief or reliefs that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case; in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard Sri. D.L.N. Rao, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the Memorandum of Petition and referring to the material on record, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the petitioner being entitled to the benefit of deemed extension in terms of Subsection (4) of Section 8A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (as amended in 2015) (for short “the MMDR Act”), the respondents did not take any steps to execute the supplementary lease deed from the year 2015 and that the same was executed in favour of the petitioner only on 17.06.2021 and the same was registered on 29.06.2021. It is submitted that the long and inordinate delay and inaction on the part of the respondents to execute supplementary lease deed by belatedly recognizing the statutory benefit of deemed extension of lease has not only resulted in irreparable injury and hardship to the petitioner but also has deprived the petitioner from carrying of mining activity in the mining lease resulting in financial hardship to the petitioner. It is therefore contended that in view of the fact that the period of lease in the supplementary lease deed expired on 07.01.2022, during the pendency of this petition, by virtue of the aforesaid conduct on the part of the respondents and the long and inordinate delay and inaction on the part of the respondents, it is necessary that directions are issued to the respondents to extend the period of lease for a further period of six years by compensating the period during which the petitioner was prevented from carrying on mining activity. 3.1. 3.1. It is also alternatively submitted by the learned Senior counsel that as held by this Court in the case of M/s Sri Santhipriya Minerals Pvt Ltd Vs. State of Karnataka and Others (W.P.No.50456/2019 and W.P.No.52477/2019 (GM-MM-S) dated 19.03.2020), this Court having come down heavily upon the respondents-State has categorically held that there was no justification for the State Government to delay grant of deemed extension of lease as per the provisions of Sub-section(6) of Section 8A of the MMDR Act and reserved liberty in favour of the petitioners to seek recourse to such remedies including claiming compensation and damages in accordance with law before the competent Civil Court. 4. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate in addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the Statement of Objections submits that firstly, the present petition is barred by the principles of acquiescence and estoppel in as much as the lease deed was executed in favour of the petitioner on 17.06.2021 and registered on 29.06.2021 without any objection or demur on the part of the petitioner. Secondly, it is also submitted that the petitioner has deliberately and intentionally suppressed the earlier proceedings and since he is guilty of suppressing material facts, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Thirdly it is contended that as held by this Court in M/s. Sri. Santhipriya Mineral’s case (supra), the question of granting any additional period and even for the period lost by the petitioner would not arise and the only remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the competent Civil Court by claiming damages/compensation. 5. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 6. In the case of M/s. Sri. Santhipriya Mineral’s case (supra), after having noted the conduct of the State Government in delaying the grant of benefit of deem extension in terms of Sub-section (6) of Section 8A of the MMDR Act, this Court has held as under: “40. The intention of the legislature is reflected from sub section (4) of Section 8A of the said Act of 1957 which provides that on the expiry of the lease period, the lease shall be put up for auction as per the procedure specified in the said Act of 1957. The intention of the legislature is reflected from sub section (4) of Section 8A of the said Act of 1957 which provides that on the expiry of the lease period, the lease shall be put up for auction as per the procedure specified in the said Act of 1957. Therefore, sub section (4) of Section 8A of the said Act of 1957 means that wherever extension of mining lease is granted under any of the provisions of Section 8A, on the expiry of the extended lease period, the lease has to be put up for auction. This provision is consistent with the objects and reasons and the legislative intent of coming out with the Amendment Act to introduce auction as the only method of disposal of mineral concessions. Thus, extension beyond the period provided in sub-section (6) of Section 8A cannot be granted. 41. These are two cases where the petitioners were denied the benefit of deemed extension for no valid reason. The question is, whether the petitioners are entitled to the relief of extension of lease period beyond 31st March 2020. 42. Firstly, in these cases, the precise loss in terms of money which is caused to the petitioners due to the delay in grant of the benefit of deemed extension can always be quantified. The loss caused can be only a loss in terms of money. The petitioners can always approach Civil Court for grant of damages. Secondly, in view of the legislative intent which is reflected from the amendments brought about to the said Act of 1957 with effect from 12th January 2015 and in the light of sub section (4) of Section 8A of the said Act of 1957, it will be inequitable to grant the relief of extension of the lease period. In any case, in both the cases, the petitioners were entitled to deemed extension till 31st March 2020 by operation of Section 8A of the said Act of 1957 and in particular, sub section (6) thereof. Immediately after the expiry of extended period of lease, the auction regime will come into picture and leases will have to be put up for auction in terms of the provisions of the said Act of 1957 and in particular subsection (4) of Section 8A. Immediately after the expiry of extended period of lease, the auction regime will come into picture and leases will have to be put up for auction in terms of the provisions of the said Act of 1957 and in particular subsection (4) of Section 8A. If a Writ Court grants relief of extension of lease, that will completely defeat the object of bringing about the amendment to the said Act of 1957 with effect from 12th January 2015 and the object of introducing auction as the only mode of granting of mineral concessions. The petitioners will not be prejudiced as the loss which is caused to them can always be compensated in terms of money. In fact, in one of the two petitions, reliance is placed on various decisions on the concept of restitution. The restitution can take place in the form of grant of damages. Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is always discretionary and equitable. In our view, for the reasons set out above, it will be inequitable to grant the relief of extension of lease. 43. Hence, we dispose of the petitions by passing the following order:- ORDER (1) We hold there was no justification for the State Government to delay the grant of benefit of deemed extension of leases till 31st March 2020 to both the petitioners as per the provisions of sub section (6) of Section 8A of the said Act of 1957; (2) For the reasons which we have recorded above, we decline to grant the relief of extension of the lease period. We however make it clear that the remedy of filing a suit seeking compensation /damages is available to the petitioners in both the petitions and that the said remedy is expressly kept open; (3) The petitions are disposed of in the above terms.” 7. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of deemed extension of Sub-section (6) of Section 8A of the MMDR Act. Applying the law laid down by this Court in M/s. Sri. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of deemed extension of Sub-section (6) of Section 8A of the MMDR Act. Applying the law laid down by this Court in M/s. Sri. Santhipriya Mineral’s case (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the said decision which was rendered in identical circumstances is squarely and directly applicable to the facts of the present case also and consequently, we hold that there was no justification for the State to delay the grant of benefit of deemed extension of lease up to 17.06.2021, which was registered belatedly on 29.06.2021 in favour of the petitioner as per the provisions of Sub-section(6) of Section 8A of the MMDR Act. 8. Insofar as the contention urged by the respondent with regard to acquiescence on the part of the petitioner is concerned, a perusal of the supplementary mining and lease deed dated 17.06.2021 will indicate that the same was registered only on 29.06.2021. In the meanwhile, on 17.06.2021 itself the petitioner addressed a letter to the respondents informing them that the lease deed was being executed by him under protest and by reserving liberty to approach the appropriate legal forum for relief/redressal, if his legitimate request was not considered. In view of the aforesaid letter/communication addressed by the petitioner specifically intimating the respondents that he has executed lease deed under protest without prejudice to his rights and contentions, no acquiescence or estoppel can be attributed to the petitioner in order to come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief on this ground. 9. Insofar as the contention that the petitioner has suppressed the material fact by not referring the earlier round of litigation is concerned, the cause of action for filing the earlier petition in W.P.No.51085/2019 was different, while the claim in the present petition is with regard to loss alleged to have been caused to the petitioner on account of delay and consequently, since the cause of action for both the petitions are entirely different, it cannot be said that the petitioner is guilty of suppression of material facts. Under these circumstances, this contention urged on behalf of the respondents cannot be accepted. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in the light of the law laid down in M/s. Sri. Under these circumstances, this contention urged on behalf of the respondents cannot be accepted. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in the light of the law laid down in M/s. Sri. Santhipriya Mineral’s case (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the present petition deserves to be disposed of in terms of the decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Sri. Santhipriya Mineral’s case (supra) and by reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to take recourse to such remedies as available in law including approaching the Civil Court for redressal of their grievances in accordance with law. Subject to the aforesaid observations and directions reserved in favour of the petitioner, the petition stands disposed of. All rival contentions are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.