PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR N v. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITIO
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17716-DB WP No. 8773 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH 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. 8773 OF 2025 (GM-MM_S) BETWEEN:
Legal Reasoning
1. SRI SRINIVASA KALLU CHAPPADI SUDUVA MATTU HULI KELASA MADUVA KARMIKARA SANGHA REGISTRED ADDRESS G VADDARAHATTI GRAMA PANCHANAHALLI HOBLI KADUR TALUK, KADUR - 577 182 REPRESENTED ITS PRESIDENT MOHAN KUMAR (BY SRI P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY VIDHANA SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY 2. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVT. OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI Digitally signed by CHAITHRA Location: High Court of Karnataka …PETITIONER - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17716-DB WP No. 8773 of 2025 BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY 3. DIRECTOR MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT No.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001. 4. SENIOR GEOLOGIST KHANIJA VIBHAGA MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101 5. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND PRESIDENT DISTRICT TASK FORCE (MINES) COMMITTEE CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101 6. SREE MALLIKARJUNA STONE CRUSHER REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER OFFICE AT NO.51/4 VADERAHALLI VILLAGE YAGATI HOBLI, KADUR TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 182 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R5 AND SRI A. MAHESH CHOWDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI H.S. SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRITS/ORDERS QUASHING THE NOTIFICATION DATED 27.01.2025 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 WHEREBY MINING LICENCE IS GRANTED TO RESPONDENT NO.6 WIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17716-DB WP No. 8773 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA) Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. P.P. Hegde assisted by learned advocate Mr. Venkatesh Somareddi for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar for respondents-State and its authorities as well as learned advocate Mr. A. Mahesh Chowdhary for learned advocate Mr. H.S. Shankar for respondent No.6. 2. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the challenge is sought to be raised against notification dated 27.01.2025, whereby respondent No.3 has granted mining license in favour of respondent No.6. It is further prayed to direct respondent Nos.1 to 5-Authorities to consider the application of the petitioner dated 15.01.2025 and grant mining license to the petitioner in respect of the property in question. 3. The petitioner appears to have been applied for grant of mining lease in respect of land property which is a quarry situated - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17716-DB WP No. 8773 of 2025 in Survey No.51/3 admeasuring 5 acres at Vaderahalli Village, Yagati Hobli, Kadur Taluka, Chikkamagaluru District. As the order was passed on 27.01.2025 in favour of respondent No.6, the petition is filed. 4. There is no gainsaying that against the order/notification impugned in this petition, the petitioner has got alternative statutory remedy of preferring the revision application under Rule 15 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994. 5. Not only that, the petitioner has already filed such revision application. This is borne out from the very averments made in the paragraph 14 of the petition, to become admitted fact. 5.1 In the said paragraph, it is stated as under, taken up by Petitioner has preferred a revision "14. petition before the Government of Karnataka on 13-03-2025/and also filed an application for stay of the order. It is further submitted that the the matter has not been government in spite of repeated requests. Petitioner was constrained to file a memo seeking the authority to take up the matter on board, however the same is not taken up even as on this day for hearing. Remedy of revision itself is rendered infructuous and the same is no avail to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the respondent No.6 is so influential that he is not allowing the authority to consider the revision petitioner and pass orders. As there is - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17716-DB WP No. 8773 of 2025 grave urgency in the matter, a present writ petition is filed." 6. The revision application was filed recently on 13.03.2025. The petitioner says that it is not being taken up. It is the further grievance that respondent No.6 is influential person who is not allowing the revisional authority to take up the proceedings of revision. 7. The court is not inclined to accept such say of the petitioner that the authority is influenced by the private party so as to not take up the Revision at party's instance. 8. When the petitioner has already availed alternative statutory remedy, this court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The petitioner has to pursue and exhaust the remedy of revision which petitioner has already opted by filing revision. 9. While not entertaining the present petition on the said ground alone and without expressing any opinion on merits, it is observed that revisional authority shall take up the revision application filed by the petitioner (copy figures at page No.75 onwards in Annexure-G) shall fix a date for hearing the same and decide the same strictly in accordance with law. As regards the date, the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17716-DB WP No. 8773 of 2025 revisional authority shall give atleast fifteen days prior notice to the parties to appear. 10. The petition is dismissed subject to the above limited observations. 11. It will be open for the petitioner to pray for interim relief as well in the revisional proceedings by making separate application which shall be considered by the authorities in accordance with law and on merits after giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties. In view of dismissal of the petition, the interlocutory
Decision
application would not survive and it stands accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE CR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10