Anand Byrareddy, J.

1. Heard the Counsel for the petitioners and the Counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioners are questioning the validity of the Circulars issued by the State Government prohibiting the grant or renewal of quarry leases in gomal lands.

3. The facts arid circumstances leading upto this petition are as follows:,

The first petitioner claims to be a holder of quarry lease for winning, of granite (a minor mineral) granted by the State Government under the Karnataka Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the KMMC Rules). It is the said petitioner’s case that a lease was so granted from 13.9.2001, in a portion of Survey No.6 of Ravagodly Village: Bangalore South Taluk. As the permission for lease was about to expire, the petitioner had applied for a renewal of the quarry lease, as provided under the KMMC Rules, before the competent authority, by an application dated 24.5.2006.

4. The second petitioner claims to represent the interest of several quarry lease holders or applicants commonly with the first petitioner. It is the case of the petitioners that the first respondent had issued a Circular dated 24.2.1999 bearing No. RD 72 LGP 98 authorising grant of quarry lease in gomal lands, subject to certain conditions mentioned therein. The said Circular was the subject matter of challenge before this Court in II; writ petition in W.P. No. 28225/1999, K. V. Vishwanath and Others Vs. State and Others, which was classified as “Public Interest Litigation” and accordingly, a Division Bench of this Court had heard the matter on merits and upheld the validity of the Circular by its order dated 29.11.1999. It was held that there is no violation of Section 71 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to s the KLR Act, for brevity) and the State Government was vested with the power to issue a Circular of the nature which was under challenge. Yet another Division Bench of this Court, while also considering the validity of the very Circular dated 24.2.1999 in Writ Petition No.25037/1999 found that the question was already covered by the above decision and expressed that it may require reconsideration, in view of another Division Bench decision of this Court in M. Katappa and Others Vs. State and Others, ILR 2001 Kar. 2363 and accordingly the matter was referred to a Full Bench of this Court. The Full Bench by its decision dated 11.8.2003 in D.C. Ramesh and Others Vs. State and Others, ILR 2003 Kar. 3789, opined that the two judgments under consideration did not take a divergent view and further, approved the reasoning and finding arrived at in K. v: Vishwanath’s case, wherein the validity, of the Circular dated 24.2.1999, was upheld. Consequently, the latter writ petition in W.P. No.25037/1999 challenging the Circular dated 24.2.1999 was dismissed, by its order dated 22.6.2004. Pursuant to the same, the respondent had granted innumerable quarry leases in gomal lands on the basis of the above said Circular dated 24.2.1999.

5. The first respondent issued a Circular bearing N o.RD 74 LGP 2005 dated 24.12.2005 on the basis of a decision of a Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.21221/2005 and connected petitions, dated 22.9.2005, whereby the authorities were directed not to grant any gomal lands for agricultural activities. It was opined therein that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued directing the authorities to regularise unauthorised use of any gomallands.

6. This Court had further directed that the order, to the said effect, be communicated to all the Deputy Commissioners of all Districts in the State and the Chief Secretary to the Government was to ensure due follow up action, in line with the legal position declared by the Court. The petitioners would point out, that there is no reference to the Circular dated 24.2.1999 in the said decision, which did enable the authorities to grant quarrying leases in certain cases. Nor did the order of the Court refer-to eit