Point of L aw: Mining lease - Mining lease granted to the petitioner was determined and therefore, the exception carved out by subsection (9) of Section 8A of the said Act of 1957 would squarely apply.

ORDER :

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.

2. With a view to appreciate the controversy involved in the case, a brief reference to the facts of the case will be necessary.

On 22nd February 1975 on the basis of an application made by the petitioner under the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short 'the said Act of 1957), a mining lease was granted to the petitioner for quartz mineral. An order was passed on 27th January 1993 by the State of Karnataka, by which, the mining lease granted to the petitioner was cancelled on the ground of non payment of dues as mentioned in the said order. A writ petition was filed by the petitioner being Writ Petition No.31821 of 1993 for challenging the order of cancellation. On 6th September 1993, an interim order was passed in the said writ petition staying the operation of the order dated 27th January 1993 and prohibiting the respondent from awarding mining lease in respect of the land subject matter of the lease granted to the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of by the order dated 10th February 1998. While disposing of the writ petition, this Court observed that the lease was valid upto 21st February 1995 and therefore, the petition has become infructuous. The petition was dismissed as infructuous. However, this Court did not disturb the order of cancellation of the lease.

3. According to the case of the petitioner, on 4th January 1995, an application was made by the petitioner seeking renewal of mining lease for a period of twenty years and also an application was filed seeking condonation of delay of 317 days in filing the application for renewal of lease by invoking sub-rule 10 of Rule 24A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short 'the said Rules of 1960'). The case made out by the petitioner is that by the order dated 25th March 2013, the delay of 317 days in filing the application was condoned. The petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant deemed extension of lease as provided under sub-section (3) of Section 8A of the said Act of 1957, which was brought on the statute book with effect from 12th January 2015.

4. A statement of objections has been filed by the State Government. The contention raised in the statement of objections is that the lease was cancelled and the said order was not disturbed in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to deemed extension. In the statement of objections, reliance is placed on Writ Petition No.56826 of 2013 filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus against the third respondent therein (Director of Mines and Geology) to issue No Objection Certificate enabling the petitioner to carry out mining activities. The said writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to adopt another remedy.

5. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that as per Sub Section (3) of Section 8A of the said Act of 1957, the mining lease granted to the petitioner on 22nd February, 1975 shall be deemed to have been granted for a period of 50 years from the date of the grant of lease. His submission is that sub-section (9) of Section 8A of the said Act of 1957 will not apply in view of the order of stay. It is urged that the order for determination of lease was not operative when the term of the lease ended. The submission is that, as till the date of the expiry of lease, the order of cancellation had not taken effect, the petitioner is entitled to a deemed extension of the lease under sub-section (3) of Section 8A of the said Act of 1957.

6. The opposition of the State Government is basically on the ground that sub-section (9) of Section 8A which carves out an exception to sub-section (3) of Section 8A of the said Act of 1957, will squarely apply as the lease stood determined before 12th January 2015.

7. We have carefu