To claim extension of the period of lease, the petitioner must establish that the quarry remained closed due to an order passed by the State Government, as per Rule 8-A of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994.

ORDER :

1. In this petition, the petitioner inter-alia has assailed the validity of the order dated 08.07.2022 passed by the Director, Department of Mines and Geology by which, the representation submitted by the petitioner seeking extension of the period of quarry lease has been rejected.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of this petition briefly stated are that the petitioner was granted a quarry lease on 10.08.2017 to extract sand for a period of five years. The period of quarry lease of the petitioner is valid up to 09.08.2022. It is the case of the petitioner that on account of a notice dated 27.10.2017 issued by the Deputy Director, Department of Mines and Geology, the petitioner could not carry out quarrying operations.

3. The petitioner, therefore, submitted a representation to the Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department, seeking extension of the period of quarry lease. The aforesaid representation has been rejected by the impugned order dated 08.07.2022. In the aforesaid factual background, this writ petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while passing the impugned order dated 08.07.2022, the Authority has not adverted to Rule 8-A of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’ for short) under which, the petitioner was entitled to extension of the period of lease.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that the petitioner cannot claim extension of the period of lease.

6. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. The first proviso to Rule 8-A of the Rules provides that where a quarry remained closed due to Court order or any other order passed by the Government, the period of lease may be extended equal to the said period. In order to claim the benefit of the first proviso to Rule 8-A of the Rules, the petitioner is required to establish that his quarry remained closed on account of an order passed by the State Government.

7. From the representation submitted by the petitioner at Annexure-H, we find that though the petitioner has stated that the Deputy Director, Department of Mines and Geology issued a notice dated 27.10.2017 asking the petitioner to stop the quarrying operations, however, no where in the representation it has been stated that on account of the said notice, the petitioner had to stop the quarrying operations. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order in a writ petition in W.P. No. 50524/2017 which was disposed of in view of the statement made by counsel for the petitioner himself that the writ petition does not survive for consideration. The petitioner has failed to make out any of the grounds mentioned in Rule 8-A of the Rules and therefore, he is not entitled to seek extension of the period of quarry lease.

8. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. The same fails and is accordingly dismissed.