The court emphasized the entitlement of the petitioner to the benefit of deemed extension under the MMDR Act and upheld the petitioner's right to seek remedies for the delay and financial hardship caused.

ORDER :

In this petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:

“I. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or such appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents to effect extension of the mining lease period for the lost period being the time commencing from the coming into force of the Amendment Act.

II. Issue such other relief or reliefs that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case; in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. Heard Sri. D.L.N. Rao, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the Memorandum of Petition and referring to the material on record, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the petitioner being entitled to the benefit of deemed extension in terms of Subsection (4) of Section 8A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (as amended in 2015) (for short “the MMDR Act”), the respondents did not take any steps to execute the supplementary lease deed from the year 2015 and that the same was executed in favour of the petitioner only on 17.06.2021 and the same was registered on 29.06.2021. It is submitted that the long and inordinate delay and inaction on the part of the respondents to execute supplementary lease deed by belatedly recognizing the statutory benefit of deemed extension of lease has not only resulted in irreparable injury and hardship to the petitioner but also has deprived the petitioner from carrying of mining activity in the mining lease resulting in financial hardship to the petitioner. It is therefore contended that in view of the fact that the period of lease in the supplementary lease deed expired on 07.01.2022, during the pendency of this petition, by virtue of the aforesaid conduct on the part of the respondents and the long and inordinate delay and inaction on the part of the respondents, it is necessary that directions are issued to the respondents to extend the period of lease for a further period of six years by compensating the period during which the petitioner was prevented from carrying on mining activity.

3.1. It is also alternatively submitted by the learned Senior counsel that as held by this Court in the case of M/s Sri Santhipriya Minerals Pvt Ltd Vs. State of Karnataka and Others (W.P.No.50456/2019 and W.P.No.52477/2019 (GM-MM-S) dated 19.03.2020), this Court having come down heavily upon the respondents-State has categorically held that there was no justification for the State Government to delay grant of deemed extension of lease as per the provisions of Sub-section(6) of Section 8A of the MMDR Act and reserved liberty in favour of the petitioners to seek recourse to such remedies including claiming compensation and damages in accordance with law before the competent Civil Court.

4. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate in addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the Statement of Objections submits that firstly, the present petition is barred by the principles of acquiescence and estoppel in as much as the lease deed was executed in favour of the petitioner on 17.06.2021 and registered on 29.06.2021 without any objection or demur on the part of the petitioner. Secondly, it is also submitted that the petitioner has deliberately and intentionally suppressed the earlier proceedings and since he is guilty of suppressing material facts, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Thirdly it is contended that as held by this Court in M/s. Sri. Santhipriya Mineral’s case (supra), the question of granting any additional period and even for the period lost by the petitioner would not arise and the only remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the competent Civil Court by claiming damages/compensation.

5. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival subm