IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 100995 OF 2025 (GM-MM-S)

BETWEEN:

1. S. KRISHNA REDDY S/O LATE S. VEERA REDDY AGE: 58 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: KOLAGALLU VILLAGE TQ. AND DIST: BALLARI - 583 101 …PETITIONER (BY SRI LAXMAN T MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Digitally signed by BY ITS SECRETARY AMBIKA H B DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Location: AND INDUSTRY MINES High Court VIDHANA SOUDHA of Karnataka BENGALURU - 560 001

2. JOINT DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY NORTH REGION BALLARI - 583 101

3. SENIOR GEOLOGIST (MINERALS)

DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY BALLARI - 583 101 TQ. AND DIST: BALLARI …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER, OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.3 TO RENEW THE MINING LEASE OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF SURVEY NO. 491, KOLAGALLU VILLAGE, BALLARI DISTRICT, IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN REVISION PETITION NO. 24/2009, DATED. 29-06-2010/206 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-B & ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that directions be issued to respondent No.3 to renew the mining lease granted to the petitioner in respect to Survey No.491, Kolagallu Village, Ballari District [the lease] in compliance with the order passed by respondent No.2 in Revision Petition No.24/2009.

2. The lease was granted to the petitioner for a period of five years with effect from 08.11.2002. The same expired on

07.11.2007. Thereafter, on 24.01.2009, the petitioner sought renewal of the lease. However, the same was rejected.

3. The petitioner filed a revision petition, being Revision Petition No.24/2009 before respondent No.2 challenging the rejection of his renewal application. The said revision petition was allowed in terms of an order dated 29.06.2010. The revisional authority also imposed penalty of Rs.20,000/- per acre. Thereafter, the petitioner made repeated representations to respondent No.3 for renewal of the lease. But, no steps were taken.

4. The petitioner states that on 08.12.2013, he learnt that his file had been lost. The petitioner, thereafter, took steps to seek documents under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. The petitioner's grievance stems from non-implementation of the order dated 29.06.2010. Admittedly, the petitioner had not applied for renewal of the lease – which expired on 07.11.2007 – within the time as stipulated under Rule 21 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 as was then in force.

7. At the material time, there was no power with the Revisional Authority to condone the delay. This issue was considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.46587/2019 (GM-MM-S) which was rejected by an order on 09.10.2019. The relevant extract of the said order is set out below:

"4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that an order was passed by the Revisional Authority on 2^nd January 2013. By filing the said revision application, the order dated 28^th October 2009 rejecting the application for renewal was challenged. He submitted that without raising any objection regarding the delay in making an application for renewal, the Revisional Authority allowed the revision application and directed the renewal of the quarrying lease. He submitted that notwithstanding the said binding order, the quarrying lease was not renewed. He further submitted that as the petitioner was entitled to renewal of th