The petitioner has challenged in this writ petition Annexure-A the report under Section 12(c) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 where a recommendation was made to the competent authority to redress the grievance of the complainant by canceling the mining lease and licence of the petitioner if already granted or to reject application for renewal of mining lease and also initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioner for the violation of provisions of Forest Conservation Act and IPC.

2. The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner applied for grant of mining lease for an area of 640 acres on 14.11.1986 along with a sketch. By mistake he had shown the area as outside the reserved area which is incorrect when the village map shows applied area is situate inside the reserved zone. Therefore, he made sketch to be in conformity with village map on 23.12.1986. On the advise of the Forest Department, he also reduced the extent of land to 240 acres. However, his application for mining lease was deemed rejected. He filed revision petition before Central Government which set aside the rejection order and directed the State Government to consider the application for grant of mining lease.

3. On 29.10.1988, the Director of Mines and Geology recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of mining lease over an area of 204 acres out of 240 acres applied for seeking relaxation by the Central Government under Rule 59(c) of MC Rules as the area comes within the reserved zone. After verification, relaxation was granted. Thereafter, on 22.7.1989, the State Government sought approval from the Government of India under Section 5(1) of MMDR Act for grant of mining lease. On 28/29.3.1990, the Central Government granted approval under Section 5(1) of MMDR Act by granting relaxation under Rule 59(c) of the MC Rules. Environment Clearance was also granted. A notification came to be issued on 29.7.1981 sanctioning the lease. On 24.1.1982 a lease deed came to be executed for a period of 20 years in favour of the petitioner after obtaining approval under Section 2 of the Forest Act, 1980 from MOEF.

4. On 15.3.2003, the State Government issued a notification under rule 59(1) inviting applications for grant of mining lease in reserved zone excluding the area granted in favour of the petitioner.

5. One Mr. Ahmed Hussain, father of the 3rd respondent applied for grant of mining lease, which came to be rejected as the said applied area overlapped with area already granted in favour of the petitioner. There were several rounds of litigation both before Central Government in Revisions and in Writ Petitions before this Court. Sri. Ahmed Hussain categorically and in unequivocal terms has given up challenge to the grant of mining lease in favour of the petitioner. Ultimately, he did not pursue his claim any further and he also died. The said Ahmed Hussain had filed W.P. No.7269/1995 wherein he has made a categorical statement that he does not wish to pursue his challenge to the grant of lease to the petitioner. On the basis of such statement, this Court by an order dated 24.01.1997 directed the Government to consider his application over the remaining area excluding the area already granted to the petitioner. The petitioner was impleaded in Revision Application No.13 (3) 2001-RCI wherein it was held that the lease granted to the petitioner was after the Central Government gave its approval and by following due process of law. He further filed W.P. No.33169/2004 challenging the mining lease granted to the petitioner, which came to be disposed of on 24.11.2007, where again a direction was issued to the authorities to consider the claim of the applicant without affecting the rights of the petitioner

6. The 3rd respondent applied for grant of mining lease in the year 2006 including the area already leased in favour of the petitioner. The said application was rejected by the State Government on the ground that