(1.) In this Appeal the Appellant has called in question the legal correctness of the decision dated 23.07.2004 of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.117/2003. The facts germane to the controversy are not in dispute. On 15.03.1982 a Quarry Lease pertaining to Survey No.421 of Maralabbe Kuppe village of Kanakapura taluk, Bangalore Rural District, Karnataka, admeasuring 54 acres came to be granted in favour of the Petitioner/Appellant for a period of ten years. It was renewed thereafter for another tranche of ten years. Accordingly, the tenure of the lease was to terminate by efflux of time on 15.03.2002. The Appellant, as per Rule 9(2) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 [hereafter referred to as 'KMMCR 1994'] applied within the prescribed time, on 12.02.2002, for the renewal thereof. Rule 9 (2A) of KMMCR 1994, inserted with effect from 17.07.1997, ordains that where a renewal application has been filed within the prescribed time the lease shall be deemed to have been extended till such time as the Government passes the requisite Orders; there is no automatic renewal of the subject Lease postulated in the Rules.
(2.) Principally two arguments have been raised before us. Firstly, that it is The Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999 ['GCDR 1999' for brevity] (a Parliamentary as also be a later enactment renders the KMMCR 1994 ineffectual).
(3.) The relevant Rules of the KMMCR 1994 are reproduced for facility of reference: