A. B. STONE CRUSHERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 1st October 2010, the petitioner was granted a quarrying lease for building stone quarrying. On 19th March 2018, the fourth respondent passed an order stating that due to non- operation for the years 2015-16 and 2016-17, the lease stands lapsed in view of sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short 'the said Rules of 1994).

(2.) Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision application under Rule 53 of the said Rules of 1994. The revision application was dismissed by the order dated 22nd January 2020, as the same was not filed within the stipulated period of limitation. The petitioner did not immediately challenge the order dated 22nd January 2020 passed by the Revisional Authority. In fact, on 03rd March 2020 the petitioner applied for revival of the lapsed lease by invoking the provision of the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of the said Rules of 1994. By an endorsement dated 17th March 2020 (Annexure - A), the said application has been rejected by the fourth respondent. This petition is filed on 26th June 2020. The petitioner has challenged the endorsement dated 17th March 2020 at Annexure - A, the order of the Revisional Authority dated 22nd January 2020 at Annexure - B and the order of cancellation dated 19th March 2020 at Annexure - C.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the revision application, the reasons which were beyond the control of the petitioner which resulted in the lapse of the lease were set out. He submitted that it was stated in the revision application that in the financial year 2017-18, the brother of the petitioner was suffering from kidney ailment and the petitioner was required to take care of his brother by taking him for dialysis. He has pointed out that it was urged in the revision petition that the petitioner also suffered from depression and diabetic disorder. He submitted that though these reasons were not pleaded in the application for revival filed on 03rd March 2020, the Deputy Director was aware of those reasons which were specifically pleaded in the revision application. He submitted that the reasons pleaded in the revision application constituted the reasons beyond the control of the petitioner which prevented him from carrying on the quarrying operations. But, the said reasons are not considered by the fourth respondent.