SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Kar) 107

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ABHAY S. OKA, S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY, JJ.
K.K. Poovaiah – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka Rep. By Its Secretary Department of Commerce And Industries M.S. Building Bangalore and Ors – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 29534 of 2019 (GM-MM-S) CONNECTED WITH WRIT PETITION NOS.30958 of 2019, 30959 of 2019, 30960 of 2019 AND 4034 of 2020
Decided On : 12-03-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Shri Jayanth V, Advocate
For the Respondent: Shri Vikram Huilgol, Aga

Point of law: Amendment – Rules - substitution made by Rule 7 of the Amendment Rules of 2020 will have a retrospective operation.

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 226, 14, 19(1)(G), 21 AND 227 - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation] Act, 1957 - Sections 15, clause (e) of 3 and 10A - Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 - clause (e) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B - Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2016 - Grant of a quarrying lease - Lease deed ought to have been executed - Petitioner in petition is concerned, he is also challenging endorsement issued by third respondent is at Annexure-A application was made by petitioner for grant of a quarrying lease - Revision Petition filed by petitioner, the said endorsement was set aside - First impugned endorsement at Annexure-A was issued endorsement, application made by petitioner was rejected on ground that as required - Challenge is to endorsement at Annexure-M which lays down ease deed.

Finding of the court:

Attempt was made by the legislature to correct the error in existing Rules - Even by applying doctrine of fairness, it will have to be held the amendment to clause (e) will have retrospective operation - There is one more aspect of matter - If a case which is governed by one of the clauses of (a) to (d-1) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B is placed after coming into force of Amendment Rules of 2020 before Licensing Authority and if the Licensing Authority is satisfied conditions in one of clauses.

Result: Petitions deserve to be allowed.

ORDER :

1. With a view to appreciate the submissions made across the bar, it will be necessary to refer to the facts of the case.

2. W.P.No.29534/2019 has been filed essentially for challenging the constitutional validity of a part of clause (e) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short ‘the said Rules of 1994’) as amended by the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2016 (for short ‘the Amendment Rules of 2016’) and the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2017 (for short ‘the Amendment Rules of 2017’).

3. As far as the petitioner in this petition is concerned, he is also challenging the endorsement dated 9th March 2019 issued by the third respondent which is at Annexure-A. On 27th June 2015, an application was made by the petitioner for grant of a quarrying lease. The application was pending on 12th August 2016 when the said Rules of 1994 were amended by the Amendment Rules of 2016. On 6th June 2017, an endorsement was issued by the Senior Geologist rejecting the application of the petitioner. In a Revision Petition filed by the petitioner, the said endorsement was set aside. On th March 2019, the first impugned endorsement at Annexure-A was issued. By the said endorsement, the application made by the petitioner was rejected on the ground that as required by clause (e) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B of the said Rules of 1994, the lease deed ought to have been executed within a period of twenty-four months as provided therein. A communication was issued on 19th March 2019 (Annexure-A) to the petitioner communicating the rejection of the application. A prayer is made for setting aside Annexure-A.

4. W.P.No.30958/2019 has been also filed for challenging a part of clause (e) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B of the said Rules of 1994 as amended by the Amendment Rules of 2016 and the Amendment Rules of 2017. In this case, the challenge is to the endorsement at Annexure-M which lays down that the lease deed had to be executed by 11th August 2018.

5. In W.P.No.30959/2019, the substantive prayer is for challenging the same part of clause (e) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B. There is also a challenge to the endorsement issued on 10th April 2019 holding that the lease deed ought to have been executed within twenty-four months from 12th August 2016.

6. W.P.No.30960/2019 contains the same challenge to the part of clause (e) as in the earlier cases and there is also a challenge to the endorsement issued as per Annexure-M by which, a reliance was placed on that portion of clause (e) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B which is the subject matter of challenge in companion petitions.

7. W.P.No.4034/2020 contains a prayer directing the respondents to execute a lease deed in accordance with the provisions of the said Rules of 1994. It is contended that on the basis of the application made by the petitioner on 24th June 2006, a notification was issued on 10th August 2018 (Annexure-D) providing for grant of a lease to the petitioner under the said Rules of 1994. The prayer in the petition is for issue of a writ of mandamus directing execution of the lease deed.

8. Before we refer to the submissions made across the bar, it is necessary to make a reference to Rule 8-B as it existed after the amendments made by the Amendment Rules of 2016 and 2017. We are reproducing only sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 8-B which read thus:

    "8-B. Status of applications received.-(1) All applications received and pending for grant of lease or license prior to the date of commencement of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2016, shall become ineligible including the applications received for grant of mining leases of the minerals that are now classified as minor mineral.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), the following shall remain eligible on and from the commencement of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2016, namely.-

(a) Applications received upon

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

          Please visit our Training & Support
          Center or Contact Us for assistance

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top