PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. N v. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13538-DB WP No. 8480 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 8480 OF 2025 (GM-MM_S) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. R. K. UTAGI, S/O SRI KARIYAPRA B. UTAGI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, C/O GANGA NILAYA, AVARADI HEAD POST, GOKAK TALUK, BELGAUM DISTRICT-591 227. (BY SRI SRINIVASA K. N., ADVOCATE) AND: …PETITIONER Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPT. OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES (MSME AND MINES), VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORS-560001. 3. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13538-DB WP No. 8480 of 2025 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, BELAGAVI TOWN, BELAGAVI PIN-591227. 5. THE MINES TRIBUNAL MINISTRY OF MINES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SHASTRIBHAVAN, NEW DEHLI-110001. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
(BY SMT.NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WRIT PEITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 22/07/2024 PASSED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TRIBUNAL, WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-Z TO THE WRIT PETITION AND DIRECT THE STATE GOVERNMENT TO RE-EXECUTE THE MINING LEASE DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER, AS DIRECTED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP No.45774/2013 DATED 17/12/2013, WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-N1. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA) Heard learned advocate Mr. K. N. Srinivasa for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar who appears upon service of copy of the petition in advance. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13538-DB WP No. 8480 of 2025 2. The competent authority, by the order dated 30.11.2022, treated the mining lease No.2412 for mining of limestone in the area of 10 Acres and 4 Guntas at Avaradi Village, Gokak Taluka, Belgaum District belonging to the petitioner, to have lapsed, in view of Rule 20 of the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016. The said Rule 20 deals with lapsing of mining lease. 2.1 The aforementioned order was taken by the petitioner before the revisional authority by filing the revision application, which was dismissed by the order dated 22.07.2024. 2.2 It is this order which is sought to be challenged by filing the present petition. Additional prayer is made to direct the respondent- authorities to re-execute the mining lease deed in favour of the petitioner. 3. The facts of the case go to show that the petitioner was granted lease for a period of twenty years with effect from 18.07.2003 for extraction of mineral limestone in the area of 4.06 Hectares at Avaradi Village, Gokak Taluka, Belgaum District. It appears that the mining operations were scheduled to commence - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13538-DB WP No. 8480 of 2025 from the month of November 2003. At a later stage, the lease deed was not re-executed by the authorities in favour of the petitioner. On the ground that the other lease holders were favoured with the execution of the lease deeds, the petitioner made a representation. 3.1 It appears that the Director of Mines and Geology issued the show cause notice dated 18.10.2011 to the petitioner under Rule 28(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 treating the lease of the petitioner as having lapsed for the reason that the leasehold land was not used for a period of two years. The reply of the petitioner was considered, but was not found satisfactory. The competent authority treated the lease to have lapsed and the same was confirmed in the revisional proceedings. 3.2. Section 20 of the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 reads as under, extracting in part, "20. Lapsing of the mining lease.- (1) Where production and dispatch has not commenced within a period of two years from the date of execution of is discontinued for a continuous period of two years the mining lease, or - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13538-DB WP No. 8480 of 2025 after commencement of production and dispatch, the mining lease shall lapse. (2) The lapsing of a mining lease shall be recorded through an order issued by the State Government and shall also be communicated to the lessee. (3) Where a lessee is unable to commence the production and dispatch within a period of two years from the date of execution of mining lease or discontinuation of production and dispatch for reasons beyond its control, he may submit an application to the State Government, explaining the reasons for the same and stating the further time required, at least three months before the expiry of such period of two years: PROVIDED that where the lessee has failed to make the application within the time stipulated above due to the reasons beyond his control but has made application before the lapse of lease under sub-rule (1), the State Government may condone the delay in making the application and in such case the State Government shall pass an order under sub-section (6) before the lapse of lease: PROVIDED FURTHER that where the lessee has failed to make the application within the time stipulated above or delay in making the application has not been condoned by the State Government, the lease shall lapse in accordance with sub-rule (1). (4) to (12) ........" 3.3. Section 20 which deals with lapsing of the mining lease provides in its sub-section (1) inter alia that where production and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13538-DB WP No. 8480 of 2025 dispatch has not commenced within a period of two years from the date of execution of the mining lease, or is discontinued for a continuous period of two years after commencement of the mining lease, the lease shall lapse. 3.4 Therefore, the lease granted to a person would lapse in two circumstances as provided in the aforesaid Rule. Firstly, if the production has not commenced within two years from the date of grant of lease and secondly, during the subsequent periods, if the production activity has been discontinued for a period of two years. The respondent-authority has found that the mining lease of the petitioner was discontinued for two years, therefore, it was treated to have been lapsed. 3.5. The action is taken under Rule 28(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Rule 28(1), dealing with lapsing of the lease, contemplates the same thing that if the production has discontinued for a period of two years, the mining lease shall stand lapsed. The said Rule clearly provides, in its proviso, that if the lessee has failed to make the application within the time stipulated above, the lease shall lapse on expiry of period of two years. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13538-DB WP No. 8480 of 2025 4. The revisional authority observed that the petitioner- revisionist failed to get the mining lease deed registered within the stipulated time. It was further observed that although the State Government has granted permission for re-execution of the mining lease in favour of the revisionist, the action could not be initiated due to failure on part of the revisionist to produce the NA certificate. Further finding was recorded that despite several notices issued by the Director of Mines and Geology, the NA certificate was not furnished by the petitioner-revisionist. 4.1 Despite that the petitioner did not respond to the notices as aforesaid, before passing the impugned order, the State Government conducted even inquiry thoroughly and extended opportunity to the petitioner of hearing on 03.08.2022. The explanation of the petitioner was not found satisfactory and after considering the evidence and the material on record, the revisional authority confirmed the order dated 30.11.2022 passed by the competent authority treating the lease of the petitioner to have lapsed. 5. The order of the competent authority dated 30.11.2022 is a reasoned order. The revisional authority applied its mind to the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13538-DB WP No. 8480 of 2025 material on record and came to the same conclusion. The finding that the petitioner did not continue his mining operation for two years is a finding fact recorded by two authorities concurrently. There is no occasion for this court to upset the same in writ jurisdiction. 5.1 It was submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that under Rule 28(1), the authorities were empowered to consider the case of the petitioner during the subsistence of lease. However, when the authorities have not found the case fit to exercise such a discretion on the material and evidence before them, this court is not inclined to substitute its view. 5.2. It is to be noted that under Rule 20(3), the petitioner was enjoined in law to file application for setting aside the lapsing within stipulated time with the prescribed fee. Admittedly, neither the application was made nor the prescribed fee of rupees one lakh was paid. It could hardly be said, therefore, that the authorities have committed any error in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13538-DB WP No. 8480 of 2025 6. No error could be booked in the order of the revisional authority, whereby the lapsing of lease of the petitioner was confirmed. 7.
Decision
The challenge is meritless and the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10