- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON9BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.20341 OF 2021 (GM-MMS)
BETWEEN:
SRI.ADITYA P GANONKAR
S/O LATE PRAKASH P GANONKAR
RESIDING AT SNEH SADAN
ARYADURGA TEMPLE ROAD,
ANKOLA-581314
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI D.L.N.RAO, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI ANIRUDH ANAND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY,
COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT
(MSME AND MINES)
BENGALURU-560 001
2. DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
BY ITS DIRECTOR,
KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA R-1, 2, 4 & 5;
R-3 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENTS TO EFFECT EXTENSION OF THE MINING LEASE
PERIOD FORTH ELOST PERIOD BEING THE TIME COMMENCING
FROM THE COMING INTO FORCE OF THE AMENDMENT ACT AND
ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
- 2 -
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 Hon9ble
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 Sub-
section (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
- 3 -
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
- 4 -
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
- 5 -
in M/s. Sri. Santhipriya Mineral9s 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 consid
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.