IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 31305 OF 2025 (GM-MM-S)

BETWEEN:

1. M/S BHARAT MINING AND ENGINEERING CO REGD. FIRM BY ITS PARTNER JYOTIN C. GANDHI REPRESENTED BY HIS REGD. POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SHRI NISAR AHAMED A. LOHAR S/O. ABDUL GAFUR LOHAR AGED 51 YEARS RESIDING AT HASTINAPUR LAYOUT KESHWAPUR HUBBALLI - 580 023 …PETITIONER (BY SRI S.R. ANURADHA, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W Digitally MS. SABAHATH SULTANA, ADVOCATE)

signed by SUMATHY KANNAN AND:

Location:

High Court of Karnataka

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY VIKASA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001

2. THE DIRECTOR/COMPETENT AUTHORITY DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY

5^TH FLOOR, KHANIJABHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001

3. THE CHAIRMAN DISTRICT TASK FORCE COMMITTEE THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOPPAL

4. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST, DC OFFICE COMPLEX HOSPET ROAD KOPPAL …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED DEMAND NOTICE DATED 14.07.2025 (ANNEXURE-"A") ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS & 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, impugning a demand notice dated 14.07.2025 [impugned order]. Additionally, the petitioner also prays that directions be issued to the respondents to execute a Quarrying Licence for extraction of Grey Granite Gneisses measuring an extent of 20 acres of Patta land falling in Survey numbers 93, 94, 96, 97 and 98 at Kakkihalli Village, Yelburga Taluk, Koppal District [QL-592]. Further, the petitioner prays that this Court declare that it is not liable to pay rent for the period during which it was not carrying on any quarrying operations.

2. Insofar as the impugned order is concerned, we note that the said order merely informs the leaseholder [M/s. Bharat Timber Construction] that after the payments of arrears in respect to various quarry permits/encumbrances, action would be taken to send a proposal for extension of the period of the lease referred to as KPLP-14, to the concerned authorities.

3. The impugned order sets out a tabular statement indicating the outstanding arrears in respect of various leases. The said statement also reflects arrears of `18,95,783/- in respect of the lease referred to as QL-592.

4. It is the petitioner's case that the demand raised in respect of QL-592 is unsustainable, as it is on account of dead rent during the period the lease was not in operation.

5. It is apparent from a plain reading of the impugned order that its import is limited to the action taken in respect of KPLP-14. Admittedly, the petitioner is not the leaseholder of KPLP-14, as it stands in the name of M/s. Bharat Timber Construction.

6. This Court is informed that the said leaseholder has preferred a separate petition challenging the impugned order. The petitioner is clearly not aggrieved by the withholding of the proposal for extending KPLP. Thus, no orders are required to be passed in this petition in respect of the impugned order.

7. Insofar as the other prayers are concerned, the same relate to the Quarry Licence in respect of QL-592, which has since expired. The same has not been extended/renewed, inter alia, due to the outstanding demand.

8. The respondents have filed a memo dated 19.01.2026 enclosing therewith the demand letter dated 16.10.2024 in respect of QL-592. The said demand letter is not a subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. However, the petitioner has filed an interim applicati