ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed seeking for the following prayers: “(1) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Authorities to extend the quarrying lease of the petitioner bearing Q.L. No. 288 over an extent of 34 guntas in Sy. No. 184 of Jothigondanapura, Chamarajanagar Taluk, Chamarajanagar up to 2029 as per Rule 8A(2) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2016, in the interest of justice and equity. (2) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Authorities to renew the quarrying lease of the petitioner bearing Q.L. No. 288 over an extent of 34 guntas in Sy. No. 184 of Jothigondanapura, Chamarajanagar Taluk, Chamarajanagar up to 2039 as per Rule 6 of the Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. The petitioner-Company has been operating the quarry from 1978 under three different quarrying lease to an extent of 34 guntas in Sy. No. 184 of Jothigondanapura, Chamarajanagar Taluk, Mysuru District with a long term vision and strategy as well as with the objective of conservation of minerals. The petitioner was granted a fresh lease deed on 16.10.1999, for a period of ten years in respect of the abovementioned lease area. Subsequently, the Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999 (for short ‘the GCD Rules 1999’) came into force and owing to the provisions there under, the said quarrying lease came to be extended for a period of twenty years vide lease deed bearing No. 288 dated 05.05.2008 w.e.f. 16.10.1999 for a further period of twenty years. It is contended that the petitioner is eligible for a deemed extension under Rule 8A(2) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2016 (for short ‘the KMMC Amended Rules’) and subsequently, renewal under Rule 6 of the GCD Rules, 1999. It is contended that the petitioner has a statutory right for a deemed extension of their lease for a period of thirty years which is up to 2029 and subsequently under the GCD Rules, 1999 the petitioner is eligible for renewal of their lease deed for a further period of twenty years after the lapse of the original grant. The petitioner made several representations, the latest one being on 09.12.2021, to the respondent-Authorities requesting for renewal/extension of their quarrying lease and the quarrying lease was not automatically renewed/extended by the Government. The petitioner made several representations, the latest one being on 09.12.2021, to the respondent-Authorities requesting for renewal/extension of their quarrying lease and the quarrying lease was not automatically renewed/extended by the Government. The petitioner aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent- Authorities have not considered the several requests of the petitioner and being denied his lawful right to deemed renewal/extension, has filed this writ petition. 3. The State filed statement of objections contending that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine and denied the averments made in the writ petition. It is contended that the petitioner has suppressed all the material facts and filed a writ petition. The petitioner- Company has not come to the Court with clean hands and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts. It is contended that the petitioner- Company was granted with quarrying lease bearing Q.L. No. 2096 dated 24.08.1978 for extraction of black granite, over an extent of 34 guntas in Sy. No. 184 of Jothigondanapura Village, Chamarajanagar Taluk, Mysuru District for a period of five years. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner-Company has been conducting quarrying activities. On 19.01.1991, the petitioner submitted an application for grant of quarry lease for a period of 10 years. Upon considering the application of the petitioner, the quarry lease was executed in Q.L. No. 6284 on 26.06.1991 for a period of 10 years. The petitioner-Company on 24.06.1994, submitted a letter to respondent No. 2 requesting for renewal of quarry lease bearing No. 2096 dated 24.08.1978. The petitioner-Company also filed an application in Form-R for renewal of quarry lease for a period of 20 years. In pursuance of the application, a notification dated 25.08.1999, was issued ‘according renewal of quarry lease’ to the petitioner-Company for a period of 10 years. Quarry lease deed dated 16.10.1999 in Q.L. No. 288 was executed in pursuance of the grant notification bearing No. CI-283 MMN 1999 dated 25.08.1999. As such, by any stretch of imagination, the lease deed executed in Quarry Lease No. 288 on 16.10.1999 cannot be construed as a fresh lease. Quarry lease deed dated 16.10.1999 in Q.L. No. 288 was executed in pursuance of the grant notification bearing No. CI-283 MMN 1999 dated 25.08.1999. As such, by any stretch of imagination, the lease deed executed in Quarry Lease No. 288 on 16.10.1999 cannot be construed as a fresh lease. Even admitting for a moment that fresh quarry lease bearing Q.L. No. 6284 was executed on 26.06.1991, under Rule 8A(2) of the KMMC Rules of 2016, maximum period for which the lease can be granted is for a period of 30 years from the date of initial grant. Even in that event, 30 years from 26.06.1991 would expire on 25.06.2021. As such, the petitioner is not entitled for any further extension and hence prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard Sri. D.L.N. Rao, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri. S.S. Mahendra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. 5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that lease was granted on 24.08.1978, for a period of 5 years i.e. up to 1983. An application was filed for extension of quarrying lease on 26.06.1991. Quarrying lease was executed on 26.06.1991, for a period of 10 years. He submits that totally 220 quarrying lease were granted by the Government. Petitioner’s lease was also one among them. He submits that PIL was filed challenging the grant of 220 quarrying lease before this Court. This Court set aside 220 quarrying lease granted in favour of the respective parties. The order passed in the PIL was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition. After the dismissal of the said SLP, the petitioner submitted an application for extension of lease. The said application was considered by the Rule Committee and lease was granted in favour of the petitioner vide Annexure-C on 25.08.1999, for a period of 10 years w.e.f. 16.10.1999. The lease granted on 25.08.1999, is a fresh lease under the KMMC Rules of 1994. He submits that Rule 58 of the KMMC Rules of 1969, was repealed. Rule 59 is a transitory provision. He submits that Q.L. No. 288 dated 25.08.1999, was granted for a period of 20 years w.e.f. 16.10.1999. He further places reliance on Rule 8-A(2) of the KMMC Amendment Rules of 1994. He submits that Rule 58 of the KMMC Rules of 1969, was repealed. Rule 59 is a transitory provision. He submits that Q.L. No. 288 dated 25.08.1999, was granted for a period of 20 years w.e.f. 16.10.1999. He further places reliance on Rule 8-A(2) of the KMMC Amendment Rules of 1994. He submits that the licence granted to the petitioner will be alive for further 30 years i.e. up to 15.10.2029, as the mineral in licence is specified mineral i.e. black granite. He further submits that representation for renewal of quarry lease for black granite was submitted on 09.12.2021, vide Annexure-G. The respondents did not consider the representation submitted by the petitioner-Company. He further submits that the grant made in the year 1978 cannot be treated as a valid date as it was granted as per the earlier rules and rules have undergone changes. The quarry lease granted on 16.10.1999, is under new Rules of 1994. Hence on these grounds he prays to allow the writ petition. 6. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that 220 quarry lease were granted in favour of the respective applicants. The said grant of 220 quarry lease was challenged in the PIL and the writ petition came to be allowed and all the 220 quarry lease were quashed, including the lease granted in favour of the petitioner. The order passed in the PIL was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the appeal. He submits that the lease granted on 25.08.1999, vide Annexure-C is the renewal of quarry lease and not a fresh quarry lease. He further submits that initially Rule 6 provides for grant of lease for a period of 20 years, subsequently Rule 8A(2) provides for deemed extension of 30 years. He submits that the petitioner is not entitled for deemed extension for 30 years. He further places reliance on Rule 8A. He further submits that Rule 8A is paramateria to Section 8A of the Mines & Minerals (Development and Regularization) Act, 1957. In order to buttress his argument, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Common Cause vs. Union of India and Others, (2016) 11 SCC 455 . He submits that the Rule Committee approved for renewal of lease and not grant of fresh lease. In order to buttress his argument, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Common Cause vs. Union of India and Others, (2016) 11 SCC 455 . He submits that the Rule Committee approved for renewal of lease and not grant of fresh lease. He submits that even assuming but not admitting, lease was granted in the year 1991, there is a lapse of 30 years and as such the petitioner is not entitled for any extension. He further placed reliance on the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 35586/2019, disposed of on 17.09.2019. Hence he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner in reply to the argument of learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the submission of learned Additional Government Advocate that Rule 8A is paramateria to Section 8A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regularization) Act, 1957, is not correct. He submits that earlier there was prohibition about black granite minerals, but subsequently, Rule 69 was amended and fresh lease was granted in favour of the petitioner. He submits that an application was filed for grant of fresh lease and not for renewal and the quarry lease granted in favour of the petitioner is a fresh lease. Hence, on these grounds he prays to allow the writ petition. 8. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 9. The question to be considered is, whether the lease executed on 25.08.1999, was an original lease or whether it was executed by way of renewal. If it was executed by way of renewal, Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 8A of the Rules of 1994 will not apply. Annexure-R2 to the objections filed by the respondent is a copy of application made by the petitioner in Form-R dated 24.06.1994, for extension of quarry lease is in respect of the subject lands. From the perusal of Annexure-R2, the preamble of the said Form-R indicates an application for renewal of Q.L. No. 2096 dated 24.08.1978, was filed. After making an application for grant of extension of lease on 24.06.1994, the petitioner stated that, in fact, its intention was to apply for renewal of lease. From the perusal of Annexure-R2, the preamble of the said Form-R indicates an application for renewal of Q.L. No. 2096 dated 24.08.1978, was filed. After making an application for grant of extension of lease on 24.06.1994, the petitioner stated that, in fact, its intention was to apply for renewal of lease. The respondent has produced a notification dated 25.08.1999, vide Annexure-R3 which is in printed form, wherein the word ‘Grant’ was struck out and the word ‘Renewal’ was maintained in Clause No. 2. The relevant part of the notification in Clause 2 dated 25.08.1999, reads thus: “The Grant/Renewal of the Lease/Licence for quarrying is subject to the terms and conditions mentioned hereunder: 2(a): Quarrying Lease/Licence shall be in respect of Black Granite minor mineral only. If any other minor/mineral/s is/are found in association with the said minor mineral, the same should be brought to the notice of the Competent Authority and if the Lessee/Licencee desires to quarry these minerals also, he should do so only after the consent of the Competent Authority is obtaining in writing. xxx xxx xxx 2(g): The Grant/Renewal of this Quarry Lease/Licence for quarrying shall be subject to various other provisions of KMMC Rules 1994. 2(h): The Grantee shall be governed by all additional conditions which may be incorporated into the Lease/Licence Deed at the time of Execution of Lease/Licence Deed.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. From the perusal of Clause 2(a), 2(g) & 2(h) shows that printed word ‘Grant’ was struck out and the word ‘Renewal’ was maintained in the notification and Clause 2(h) of the notification indicates that application is submitted for execution of lease. Thus, we must note that after making an application for grant of renewal of lease in Form-R, it was mentioned that the earlier lease was granted on 24.08.1978, for a period of 5 years and applied for renewal on 24.04.1990, once again filed a renewal application on 19.01.1991 and it was considered and quarry lease was sanctioned on 26.06.1991. The said quarry lease was set aside by this Court and same was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Further, the petitioner submitted Form-R vide Annexure-R2. It indicates for renewal of lease and not for fresh lease. Pursuant to the notification dated 25.08.1999, the respondent executed quarrying lease on 25.08.1999, vide Annexure-C. Annexure-C indicates the notification No. CI-283 MMN 99 i.e. Annexure-R3. Further, the petitioner submitted Form-R vide Annexure-R2. It indicates for renewal of lease and not for fresh lease. Pursuant to the notification dated 25.08.1999, the respondent executed quarrying lease on 25.08.1999, vide Annexure-C. Annexure-C indicates the notification No. CI-283 MMN 99 i.e. Annexure-R3. From the perusal of the quarrying lease/licence deed vide Annexure-C, the said quarrying lease is a renewal of quarrying lease, but not a fresh lease as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Further, the lease which was granted on 24.08.1978, in respect of same land was valid only for a period of 5 years. The documents signed by the petitioner shows that when the application was made by the petitioner vide Annexure-R2 dated 24.06.1994, the lease granted in the year 1978 had expired long back. Considering the notification vide Annexure-R3 and quarrying lease vide Annexure-C, we hold that what was granted under the notification dated 25.08.1999, was a renewal of quarrying lease. The issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 35586/2019, disposed of on 17.09.2019. Considering the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and also the documents produced by the petitioner, it establishes that the lease granted vide Annexure-C was by way of renewal and it was not an original lease. On a plain reading of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 8A of the said Rules of 1994, automatic extension provided therein will not apply to a case where the lease has been renewed prior to coming into force of the Rules as amended on 12.08.2016. 11. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court. We have perused the judgments. There is no dispute in regard of the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgments. The said judgments are not applicable to the case in hand. We do not find any grounds to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER: The writ petition is dismissed. In view of disposal of the writ appeal, pending I.A. if any, do not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of.