IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST 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. 34520 OF 2025 (GM-MM_S)

BETWEEN:

M/S. HEMA SRI GRANITES REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, CH. JAGADEESH KUMAR, S/O. BADRINARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: MANAGING PARTNER, ADDRESS D. NO. 5/116, KOTAKATLA VARI STREET, AT CHIMAKURTHY POST AND MANDAL-523 226, Dig itally signed by DIST PRAKASAM, NIRMALA STATE-ANDHRA PRADESH.

DEVI …PETITIONER Location:

(BY SRI. SHIVAPRASAD B SAJJAN, ADVOCATE)

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY AND REVISION AUTHORITY, DEPT. OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES (MSME AND MINES)

ADDRESS VIKASA SOUDHA, AT BENGALURU-560 001.

2. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, ADDRESS KHANIJA BHAWAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, AT BENGALURU-560 001.

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, ADDRESS SECTOR NO. 67, UNIT-02, NAVANAGAR, AT BAGALKOT-587 104.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.S. HARISH, GA)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE NO.GABHUI/UNI(KHA.A)/BGK/KAGAGUA- 45/2014/2024-25 10,416-10,418 i.e., DATED 23/08/2024, PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT i.e., THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, DULY PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A AND 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 writ petition inter alia impugning the order dated 23.08.2024 passed by respondent No.2 [Director, Department of Mines & Geology, Bengaluru] whereby the petitioner's application for quarry lease was rejected on the ground that applied area was overlapping with an area under a prior application.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the applicant who had moved the said application has since withdrawn his application and therefore, the reasons on which the petitioner's application was rejected does not survive.

3. Learned AGA points out that the petitioner has an equally efficacious remedy of a revision under the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994.

4. In view of the above, we do not consider it apposite to entertain the present petition. The present petition is accordingly dismissed. This would not preclude the petitioner from availing alternate remedy in accordance with law.

Sd/-

(VIBHU BAKHRU)

CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-

(C.M. POONACHA)

JUDGE BS - List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8