The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision to extend a quarry lease should be in accordance with the recommendation of the competent authority and the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994.

JUDGMENT :

S. Vishwajith Shetty, J.

1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

a. Call for the records on the file of the Respondents with regard to grant of Quarrying Lease and extension of the same in respect of the lands in Survey No. 118(P1) of Malleshwara Village, Kadur Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District and culminating the proceedings impugned as at Annexure H;

b. Issue a Writ of Certiorari, Similar Writ or Order or Direction and quash the proceedings as at Annexure H dated 13.01.2021, insofar as same relates to observation made in Paragraph No. 4 regarding the extension/renewal of the quarrying lease of the Petitioner in respect to the Schedule Property;

c. Issue a Writ of Mandamus, Similar Writ, Order or Direction and direct the Respondent No. 2 to extend/renew the lease of the Schedule Property for the duration of 5 years as recommended in terms of Annexure G as per Section 3-B of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, forthwith and respect of the Scheduled Property.

2. Brief facts of the case are, petitioner is a successful bidder for development of NH-173 under EPC mode from KM 24.600 to KM 70.063 of Mudigere-Kadur Section in the State of Karnataka under Job No. NH 173-KNT-2017-18-873. The appointed date for the tender is 18 January, 2019 and the tentative completion date was fixed on 17 January, 2021. It is the case of the petitioner that because of Covid-19 pandemic, the work could not be completed, and therefore, he has been granted extension of time for completion of the work.

3. Petitioner was granted stone quarry lease in respect of the land in Sy. No. 118/P1 of Malleshapura village, Kadur Taluk, for a period of two years and this quarry lease was granted for the purpose of his requirement of stone for the project awarded to the petitioner. In view of the extension of time granted to the petitioner for completion of the project, the petitioner had also sought for extension of quarry lease and considering the same, the Executive Engineer, NH Division, Hassan, had recommended the extension of quarrying lease in accordance with Rule 3-B of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short, 'the said Rules of 1994'). The respondent No. 4 had constituted a committee for the purpose of considering the said application filed by the petitioner for extension consisting of the Deputy Commissioner of the District and other authorities, and in the meeting of the said committee held on 13 January, 2021, the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Chickmagalur, raised an objection for extension of the lease on the ground that since petitioner's stone quarry lease comes within the deemed forest area, a joint spot inspection is required to be held prior to issuing any no objection certificate. The committee after considering the said objection, has taken a decision in the said proceedings to extend the quarry lease for a period of two years in favour of the petitioner for development of NH-173. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to executing the original quarry lease, no objection certificates were obtained from all the concerned authorities including the Forest Department, and therefore, for the purpose of extending the lease, fresh no objection certificate is not required. He also submitted that in view of the judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 54476/2016 connected with W.P. No. 51135/2016 disposed of on 12 June, 2019 in the case of Dhananjay v. State of Karnataka and others, the objection raised by the Deputy Conservator of Forests was required to be overruled. He submits that in view of sub-rule (2) of Rule 3-B of the said Rules of 1994, since the recommendation was made by the competent authority for extension of quarry lease for a further period of five years i.e., one year for construction and four years for maintenance of the said project, the committee was not justified in extending the lease