The court emphasized that the petitioners' claim of being prevented from carrying out quarrying operations was unfounded, as they themselves sought renewal of the quarry lease and failed to pay the requisite amount for renewal.

ORDER :

1. In this writ petition, the petitioners inter alia seek a writ of certiorari to the Deputy Director, Department of Mines and Geology to refund the entire or proportionate amount paid by the petitioners as well as the amount of Security Deposit to the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners were prevented from carrying out quarrying operation as per the agreement of quarry lease for a period of one year i.e., from 05.01.2010 till 04.01.2011 on account of an interim order dated 24.10.2010 passed in W.P.No.13355/2010.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal, briefly stated, are that the petitioners were the highest bidders in the auction held for sand mining for a period of one year with effect from 05.01.2010 to 04.01.2011 in respect of various survey numbers 'as is was is' basis. It is the case of the petitioners that on account of an interim order dated 24.10.2010 passed in W.P.No.13355/2010, the petitioners could not carry out any quarrying operation for a period i.e., from 20.04.2010 till 04.01.2011.

3. A quarry lease was executed in favour of the petitioners, in which the petitioners were permitted to carry out quarrying operation for a period from 05.01.2010 till 04.01.2011. After expiry of period of lease executed in favour of the petitioners, the petitioners by a communication dated 03.01.2011 were apprised that the quarry lease period came to be extended in their favour provided they pay the bid amount as well as the requisite charge in this regard. The petitioners thereupon by a communication dated 12.11.2011 expressed their willingness to have extension of period of lease and sought time for payment of the requisite amount. However, the requisite amount was not paid by the petitioners. Thereupon by a notice dated 23.02.2011, the petitioners were informed that their application seeking extension of the period of lease for three months has been kept in abeyance. The petitioners, however, made a claim seeking refund of the proportionate bid amount as well as security deposit, which was rejected by the Deputy Director, Mining and Geology Department by an order dated 14.12.2016. In the aforesaid factual background, this petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the order dated 20.04.2010 passed by division bench of this court in W.P.No.13355/2010, the petitioners could not carry out quarrying operation with effect from 20.04.2010 till 04.01.2011 and therefore, are entitled to refund of the proportionate bid amount as well as security deposit. It is further submitted that there is no evidence on record to indicate that the petitioners are engaged in quarrying operation. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on decision of the Supreme Court in 'HARYANA MINING COMPANY VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS', 2022 SCC ONLINE SC 577.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has invited the attention of this court to the terms and conditions contained in the quarry lease executed in favour of the petitioners. It is further submitted that the sand policy came into force with effect from 29.01.2011. Learned Additional Government Advocate while inviting the attention of this court to condition Nos.11 and 17 of the Ordinary Sand Auction Rules and Regulations. It is also submitted that the new sand policy came into force with effect from 29.01.2011 and it is also submitted that this court did not direct the prohibition of quarrying activities in the State of Karnataka but only prevented the use of mechanized boat in quarrying operations. It is further submitted that the petitioners, after expiry of the period of lease, themselves made a request on 20.12.2011 to extend the lease period and sought time to make payment of the amount due for extension of quarry lease. It is also submitted that all similarly situate person like that of the petitioner, a division bench of this court has dismissed the writ petition viz., W.P.Nos.19064-1