HANUMANTHA GOWDA Vs. DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS two in number have come up to this Court being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Senior Geologist the 2nd respondent herein rejecting the applications of the petitioners for grant of renewal of mining leases in their favour and which came to be affirmed by the 1st respondent, Director of Mines and Geology in the revision petitions filed before him under Rule 53 (1) of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short 'the Rules' ).

(2.) THE undisputed facts are that the 1st petitioner had been granted mining lease for a period of 5 years as per lease deed dated 7. 1. 1997 in respect of 8 acres of land in Sy. No. 150 and 151 of itagi village, Shirahatti Taluk in Dharwad District for quarrying ordinary sand on the Tunga bhadra river bed. Likewise the 2nd petitioner also had been granted quarry lease for over an area of 10 acres in Tungabhadra riverbed adjacent to Sy. No. 151 of Itagi village Shirahatti Taluk, district for a period of 5 years from 7. 1. 1997. After the death of the 1st petitioner, husband of the 2nd petitioner, the 2nd petitioner continued the mining operation on the lease land as legal heir. Both the petitioners had sought for renewal of the lease by filing applications on 29. 12. 2001. The applications were in consonance with the requirement of the Rules particularly under Rule 21 (2) of the Rules. The 2nd respondent Senior Geologist after looking into the applications rejected the request for renewal as per order dated 1. 1. 2002 for the reason that the government by notification dated 16. 10. 2000 issued under Rule 4 of the Rules read with Section 21 of the General Clauses Act 1897 had amended the provisions of Rules 21 (1) and 21 (2) and a second proviso having been introduced to the effect that nothing in this rule shall apply to grant of a quarrying lease to quarry ordinary sand and the grant of ordinary sand shall be by auction in accordance with the provisions of the Chapter IV A of the Rules and therefore renewal cannot be granted.

(3.) PETITIONERS being aggrieved by these orders had carried the matter in revision before the 1st respondent, Director of Mines and Geology and the revision petitions having been rejected by the 1st respondent as per order dated 28th March, 2002 wherein also the revisional authority indicated that the Government having changed the policy for grant of quarrying licence for ordinary sand to be by auction sale from year to year effective from 16. 10. 2000, renewal cannot be granted. Aggrieved by these orders petitioners have approached this Court with these Writ petitions. It is urged that the order in question particularly Annexure E passed by the Revisional authority is not inconsonance with the provisions of the Rules. The notification referred to and relied on by the authorities does not govern the situation of renewal of mining lease sought for by the petitioners and order of rejection is on an erroneous understanding and is not sustainable in law, that the Writ Petitions are required to be allowed by quashing the same.