ADITYA P. GANONKAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:

(2.) Heard Sri. D.L.N. Rao, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and perused the material on record.

(3.) In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the Memorandum of Petition and referring to the material on record, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the petitioner being entitled to the benefit of deemed extension in terms of Sub- sec. (4) of Sec. 8A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (as amended in 2015) (for short "the MMDR Act"), the respondents did not take any steps to execute the supplementary lease deed from the year 2015 and that the same was executed in favour of the petitioner only on 17/6/2021 and the same was registered on 29/6/2021. It is submitted that the long and inordinate delay and inaction on the part of the respondents to execute supplementary lease deed by belatedly recognizing the statutory benefit of deemed extension of lease has not only resulted in irreparable injury and hardship to the petitioner but also has deprived the petitioner from carrying of mining activity in the mining lease resulting in financial hardship to the petitioner. It is therefore contended that in view of the fact that the period of lease in the supplementary lease deed expired on 7/1/2022, during the pendency of this petition, by virtue of the aforesaid conduct on the part of the respondents and the long and inordinate delay and inaction on the part of the respondents, it is necessary that directions are issued to the respondents to extend the period of lease for a further period of six years by compensating the period during which the petitioner was prevented from carrying on mining activity.