SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 212

- 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top