Digitally signed by SRIDEVI S

Location: High Court of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY APPROPRIATE DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONER APPLICATION DATED 31/03/2015, AS PER ANNEXURE-A, AND GRANT THE QUARRY LEASE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY WITHIN STIPULATED PERIOD & 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. Issue notice.

2. The learned Government Advocate accepts notice.

3. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that a direction be issued to the respondents to consider the application dated 31.03.2015 for the grant of a quarry lease.

4. The petitioner states that her late husband, Sri. V. Raghu had filed an application dated 31.03.2015 for the grant of a quarry lease in respect to land measuring 7 acres and 20 guntas falling in Survey No.26, Chunchanapalya Village, Goluru Hobli, Bagepalli Taluk, Chikkaballapura District. Apparently, the said application was not considered, and the petitioner's late husband filed a writ petition, WP No. 9089/2016, which was disposed of by an order dated 23.02.2016, directing the respondents to consider the said application.

5. The said application was rejected by respondent No.2 on 04.12.2017 by an endorsement holding that the applicant was ineligible under Rule 8(b)(1) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, as amended by the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2016.

6. However, thereafter, on 30.10.2018, a spot inspection was conducted, and the petitioner states that there were no technical objections to the grant of the mining lease. Thereafter, the petitioner's late husband filed WP.No.52593/2019, impugning the endorsement dated 04.12.2017 and seeking reconsideration of the application. The said petition was allowed by an order dated 27.02.2020 and the respondents were directed to reconsider the application afresh.

7. The petitioner states that despite orders, the application was not considered. The petitioner's husband expired on 24.11.2025. Thereafter, on 21.01.2026, the petitioner submitted a representation for the grant of a quarry lease, pursuant to the application made by her late husband.

8. The learned Additional Government submits that since more than six (06) years have now elapsed, the petitioner's late husband's application would have been considered pursuant to the order dated 27.02.2020 passed in WP.No.52593/2019. He submits that in the event the same has not been considered, the concerned authorities shall do so immediately.

9. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the application within a period of six (06) weeks from the date and communicate the decision to the petitioner. Needless to state, the respondents shall consider the same by substituting the petitioner as an applicant. In the event the application has already been considered pursuant to the order dated 27.02.2020, the decision of the same would be communicated to the petitioner within the aforesaid period.

10. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.