ORDER :

Abhay S. Oka, J.

Hearing of this writ petition was given out of turn priority in view of the order of the Apex Court dated 17th August, 2020 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No.800/2020. In terms of the said order of the Apex Court, application for amendment of the petition was allowed earlier and yesterday, we commenced the final hearing of the petition. Out of turn priority was given to hearing only in view of the decision of the Apex Court under the aforesaid order.

2. To put it mildly, this is a classic case of a party indulging in suppression of material facts. Before we refer to the facts of the case, we may hasten to add that the learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner appeared and stated before the Court today that he, as a Senior Counsel of this Court, will never tolerate such conduct on the part of a party and therefore, he has advised the petitioner to immediately withdraw the petition. He also stated on instructions that apart from the fact that the petitioner wants to unconditionally withdraw this petition, the petitioner will not press IA.No.58584/2019 filed before the Apex Court seeking a direction for extension of mining lease subject matter of this petition. A memo for withdrawal of this petition has been accordingly filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in which a prayer is made for permitting unconditional withdrawal of this petition.

3. Considering the extent of suppression of facts indulged by the petitioner, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner has agreed to withdraw the petition, it is necessary for us to pass an order regarding payment of costs. Therefore, a brief reference to the facts of the case is necessary.

4. The subject matter of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the mining lease granted to the predecessor of the petitioner under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short ‘the said Act of 1957’). The mining lease was in respect of Iron Ore and Manganese. In paragraph 3 of the petition it is claimed by the petitioner that it is a ‘model Miner’ and has adopted best practices in mining activities. The petitioner is relying upon mining lease No.2346 (for short ‘the said lease’), a copy of which is annexed as Anneuxre-K. The said mining lease was originally granted to Sri Y.Hanumanthappa by the erstwhile Government of Mysore on 7th October, 1952. The lease was transferred to M/s. Jyothi Brothers on 22nd February, 1956 and on 9th September, 1969, the lease was transferred to the present petitioner.

5. On 7th October, 1952 the lease was granted for a period of 20 years till 6th October, 1972. The further extension from 7th October 1992 was granted in respect of a part of the area of the original lease as per the Government Notification dated 8th April, 2001. The renewal of lease granted for 20 years was in respect of 103.81 Hectares from 7th October, 1992. Thus, the renewal was granted till 6th October 2012. An application for further renewal dated 26th February 2009 was actually filed on 7th March 2009. The said application is at Annexure-K1 which seeks extension of lease for a period of 20 years.

6. In the petition as originally filed, the challenge is to the Notifications issued by the State Government inviting bids for grant of mining lease in respect of the area of the lease earlier granted to the petitioner. The objection of the petitioner to the impugned notifications inviting bids was essentially on the ground that the petitioner is entitled to extension of lease till 6th October, 2032.

7. There are some developments which took place before filing of the petition. In Writ Petition (Civil) No.562/2009, on 29th July, 2011, the Apex Court passed an order prohibiting Iron Ore and other mining activities in Bellary District. A similar order was passed on 26th August, 2011 in respect of Iron Ore and mining activities in Chitradurga and Tumakur Districts. As the mining lease subject matter of this