Lease applications must be considered only after verifying that any dues owed by the applicant have been settled, emphasizing compliance with regulatory rules.

ORDER :

VIBHU BAKHRU, CJ.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under:

"To issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction to quash the impugned order dated 19.11.2021 in R.P No.47 of 2017 bearing No.DMG/JDM/Revision:2021-22 order/1136 passed by the respondent No.3 as found at Annexure-AC"

2. The facts in a nutshell leading to the present petition are that pursuant to the notification dated 09.01.2012 calling for applications for grant of quarry lease in respect of 2 acres (previous quarry lease No.422) and 6 acres 20 guntas (previous quarry lease No.25), both situated in Sy.No.29 of Huluvenahalli village, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District. The petitioner made an application dated 08.02.2012 for mining building stones – a non specified minor mineral – over the area measuring 6 acres 20 guntas of Sy. No 29. It is pertinent to state that the said area applied for by the petitioner was previously leased to respondent No.6 and since the lease had expired, the said area was made available for grant. The present dispute pertains to the extent of said 6 acres 20 guntas situated at Sy. No.29 Huluvenahalli village [subject property].

3. Respondent No.5 (Senior Geologist) had demanded a sum of Rs.53,26,180/- from respondent No.6 towards arrears due and also held that respondent No.6 held an excess of 25 acres contrary to Rule 25 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as KMMC Rules, 1994). Being aggrieved by the said demand, respondent No.6 preferred Writ Petition No.44397/2011 [GM-MM-S]. The said writ petition was disposed of by a coordinate bench of this court vide its order dated 25.7.2012. In the course of the said proceedings, respondent No.6 renounced his interest in all other leases held by him and pursued the leases in respect of quarry lease Nos.25 and 422. Accordingly, this Court directed that the application of respondent No.6 for grant of quarry leases in respect of the said areas be considered on its merits.

4. Subsequently, respondent No.5 issued a demand notice dated 31.12.2012 demanding a sum of Rs.20.00 lakhs being the balance and due from respondent No.6 in respect of quarry lease No.565 held by him. Prior to issuing the said demand notice, Respondent No.5 had vide order dated 27.11.2012, rejected the application filed by the petitioner in respect of the subject land. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Revision Petition No.261/2012, which was disposed of by respondent No.3 - Joint Director by order dated 13.02.2013. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No.19011/2013 [GM-MM-S]. It is pertinent to note here that respondent No.6 herein was arrayed as respondent No.2 in the said writ petition. A coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 09.07.2013 partly allowed the said writ petition and ordered as under:

15. In the facts and for the reasons discussed herein above, the petition is partly allowed, the impugned orders dated 27.11.2012 and 13.2.2013 of the Senior Geologist and the Revisional Authority respectively are set aside and the original application dated 8.2.2012 of the petitioner is ordered to be considered in accordance with law and more particularly the provisions of sub-rule (1), (2) and (3) of Rule 8-A as also other relevant rules of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 along with the application of Respondent no.2, in terms of the previous order dated 25.7.2012 of this court in W.P.No.44397/2011. As a necessary and consequential further order, it is directed that the subsequent notification dated 4.3.2013 in Form-GL sanctioning of quarry lease to Respondent no.2 in re