Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 25446
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Vibhu Bakhru, CJ, C.M. Poonacha, J
SMT. LATHA. K – Appellant
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 13327 OF 2026 (GM-MM_S)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vinayaka V S
For the Respondents: K.S. Harish, Ajay Pal Singh
Under Section 10A(1) of the MMDR Act, mining lease applications received prior to the Amendment Act, 2015, are ineligible unless they fall under specific exceptions, such as the possession of a reconnaissance permit or prospecting license.
Headnote:The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari directing the respondents to consider an application dated 12.08.2010 for the grant of a mining lease for iron ore over 74.20 hectares of forest land in Bellary District, pursuant to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015. The court noted that the State Government had not forwarded recommendations to the Central Government, which is a prerequisite for granting such leases under the MMDR Act. The central issue was whether the application, filed prior to the Amendment Act, remained eligible for consideration. The court reasoned that under Section 10A(1) of the MMDR Act, all applications received before the commencement of the Amendment Act became ineligible. It further determined that the exception claimed by the petitioner under the proviso to Section 10A(2)(c) was inapplicable as it specifically referred to cases involving reconnaissance permits or prospecting licenses under Section 10A(2)(b). The petition is accordingly dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. requirement of state recommendation and central approval for granting mining leases. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. ineligibility of pre-amendment applications under section 10a of the mmdr act. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. dismissal of the petition and disposal of pending applications. (Para 6 , 7) |
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 4 TO EXPEDITIOUSLY CONSIDER THE APPLICATION NO.AML 1286 DATED 12/08/2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ANNEXURE-A AND PASS SUITABLE ORDER TO GRANT MINING OF IRON ORE OVER AN AREA OF 74.20 HECTARES OF FOREST LAND AT KUMARASWAMY RANGE DHARAMAPURA, SANDUR TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISION OF MMDR (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2015.
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 as a public interest litigation, inter alia, praying that direction be issued to respondent Nos.2 to 4 to consider the petitioner's application dated 12.08.2010 for grant of a mining lease in respect of iron ore over an area of 74.20 Hectares of the forest land at Kumaraswamy Range Dharamapura, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District in accordance with the provisions with the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 [MMDR Amendment Act] in the interest of justice.
2. The petitioner filed an application No.AML 1286 for grant of mining lease in question. However, the State Government has not forwarded its recommendations to the Central Government for granting the mining lease. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that by virtue of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 [MMDR Act] as amended by the MMDR Amendment Act, no mining lease can be granted for the specified mineral without the approval of the Central Government. He submits that the same would be possible only if the petitioner's application is processed and is recommended by the State.
3. By virtue of Section 10A of the MMDR Act, all applications received prior to the date of commencement of the Amendment Act, became ineligible. Thus, ex-facie the petitioner's application is no longer eligible to be considered. Notwithstanding the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is covered under the exception is provided by virtue of the proviso to Section 10A (2)(c) of the MMDR Act.
4. The said contention is insubstantial as the proviso refers to Section 10A (2)(b) of the MMDR Act, which concerns a case where an applicant has already been granted a reconnaissance permit or a prospecting licence. None of the exceptions as set out in Section 10A (2) are applicable.
5. Thus, the petitioner's application for mining lease is not saved from the rigours of Section 10A (1) of the MMDR Act.
6. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
7. All pending applications are also disposed of.
