NANDHI MINERALS, GADIGI PALACE, CAR STREET, BELLARY-583101 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI ALLUM PRASHANTH, S/O SRI ALLUM VEERBHADRAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application for seeking dismissal of the writ petition has been filed by the applicant -Respondent No.4, S.K. Sarawagi & Co. Pvt. Ltd on 30.10.2009. The alternative prayer is that the order dated 06.05.2004 be vacated. By that order, the operation of Annexure -P dated 21.02.2004 granting a mining lease in favour of the applicant -Respondent No.4 for iron and manganese ore over an area of 148.44 hectares in Navalahatti village of Sandur taluk of Bellary district for a period of twenty years came to be stayed by the Court. The Applicant states that it was expecting an early hearing of the writ petition for some years and since that did not occur, the present application has been preferred.

(2.) THE gravamen of the assault is founded on the factum of the writ petitioner having challenged the said mining lease granted in favour of the Applicant -Respondent No.4 by way of a Revision to the Central Government under Rule -54 of the Mineral Concession Rules. Ergo, the writ petition itself was not and continues to be not maintainable. It is contended by Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Applicant -Respondent No.4 that the Revision is the proper and efficacious remedy against the order dated 21.02.2004, the operative portion of which reads as follows: -

(3.) THE contention of Shri. Rajiv Nayyar, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant is that the statutory remedy lay in a Revision under Rule -54 of the Mineral Concession Rule -1960. Therefore, the extraordinary powers vested in this Court under Article -226 of the Constitution of India would not be available to the petitioner. Moreover, in the present case, since that remedy has been availed of, a fortiori a writ petition would not be maintainable and especially so where the Appropriate Authority has already dismissed the Revision as withdrawn, without granting liberty to the petitioner to pursue the writ petition.