JUDGMENT :

State have presented this writ appeal challenging order dated April 15, 2008 passed in W.P. No.3502/2006 whereby the Hon'ble Single Judge has directed State Government to accept writ petitioner’s application and to issue permits to transport granite blocks.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their status in the writ petition.

3. Heard Shri.V.G.Bhanuprakash, learned AGA for the State and Shri.V.K.Narayana Swamy, learned Advocate for legal representatives of deceased writ petitioner.

4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, writ petitioner was granted a mining lease for quarrying granite on July 21, 1977 for a period of five years in Cowdally Reserve Forest, in Malai Mahadeshwara Forest in an area of 5 acres. The said lease stood expired on July 20, 1982. It was not renewed thereafter. Petitioner claiming that he had extracted granite mineral but not transported them, had filed W.P. No.2749/2001 and the same was disposed of on February 6, 2001 with a direction to the petitioner to approach the Department of Mines and Geology. On February 8, 2001, he got a notice issued to the Director of Mines and Minerals through his Advocate with a request to instruct the Senior Geologist of Chamarajnagar and the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Kaveri Wildlife, Kanakapura Forest to issue permits to transport the granite blocks. He renewed his request with another notice on June 11, 2001. Subsequently, petitioner filed writ petition No.3699/2002 annexing the aforesaid legal notices. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to consider petitioner’s request made in the said two notices. Later, he filed another writ petition in W.P. No.6473/2005 with similar prayer. This Court rejected the said writ petition with liberty to move under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act.

5. On January 23, 2006, the Deputy Forest Conservator communicated to the petitioner that no forest produce can be removed from a Reserve Forest. Petitioner challenged the said communication in the instant writ petition. The Hon'ble Single Judge directed the respondents therein to accept petitioner’s application and to issue permits to move granite blocks. Feeling aggrieved, State have preferred this appeal.

6. Shri.V.G.Bhanuprakash, learned AGA arguing in support of this appeal submitted that petitioner’s lease granted in the year 1977 stood expired in the year 1982. Petitioner has been claiming that he has ‘granite blocks’ extracted during the currency of lease and making attempts to remove them. The land in question is a Reserve Forest and Wildlife Sanctuary. Hence, no non-forest activity can be undertaken as per the provisions of Forest Conservation Act, 1980.

7. He further submitted that the directions issued by the Hon'ble Single Judge are contrary to Rule 22 of The Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1969 (for short ‘1969 Rules’), Rule 6(4) of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short ‘1994 Rules’); and Section 4, 4(1)(a) and Section 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short ‘MMRD Act’).

8. Shri. V.K.Narayana Swamy, for the writ petitioner argued in support of the impugned order.

9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

10. Indisputable facts of the case are, petitioner was granted mining lease in the year 1977 for a period of five years which stood expired on July 20, 1982. There was no extension of lease.

11. Rule 22 of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1969 reads as follows:

“22. Minerals left on the block after the termination of the lease. – Any mines mineral extracted from the quarry and not removed by the lessee before the date of termination of the lease shall be the property of the Government.”

12. Section 2 of Forest Conservation Act, 1980 reads as follows:

“2. Restriction on the dereservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purpose. – Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time b