B.G. NARAYANASWAMY S/O GURAPPA Vs. THE DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, NORTH DIVISION AND SRI VENKATESHAPPA S/O NARAYANAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE third Respondent in W.P. No. 43752/2004 (GM MM/S) is before us in this appeal, assailing the order dated 16.06.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge. By the said order, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 14.10.2004 (Annexure -J) passed by the Revisional Authority in favour of the Appellant herein.

(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the appeal papers.

(3.) IN the above noticed admitted facts, it is also not in dispute that Rule 8 -A of the KMMC Rules provides for notifying the availability of the area for grant. However, the solitary contention on behalf of the Appellant is that the first proviso to the said Rule grants a right for renewal in favour of the Appellant herein as he was a previous lease holder and had made an application seeking renewal. The proviso relied on, reads as hereunder, Provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to renewal of a quarrying lease in favour of the original lessee or his legal heirs. In order to consider the validity of the right claimed by the Appellant herein by placing reliance on the above noticed proviso, it would be necessary for us to determine at the outset as to what would be a valid renewal application, because, only if the Appellant had made a valid renewal, application, the right for consideration would arise. In this regard, the application in any event should have been made prior to the availability for grant being notified on 08.09.2000 whereunder it was thrown open to all interested Applicants seeking grant of quarrying, lease.