ANNAPURNESHWARI MINERALS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dtd. 13/8/2020 passed by the Joint Director and Revision Authority, Department of Mines and Geology, South Zone, Mysuru [the Revisional Authority]. The petitioner also assails the Rejection Order dtd. 18/1/2014 passed by respondent No.5 [The Senior Geologist], whereby the petitioner's application for quarry lease in respect of lease No.138 for mining building stones, in an area covering one acre falling in Survey No.43, Chikka Nagavalli Village in Chikkaballapur District, was rejected. The said rejection was in terms of Rule 28 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 [the 1994 Rules].

(2.) The petitioner claims that he was carrying on business of quarrying building stones pursuant to quarry lease/licence being QL No.138 in an area of one acre falling in Survey No.43, Chikka Nagavalli Village in Chikkaballapur District. The said quarry lease was initially granted to one Shri Doddachinnappa [the original lessee] on 18/3/2011 for a period of ten years with effect from 30/12/2003. The term of the lease expired on 29/12/2013. Prior to the expiry of the said lease, the original lessee (Shri Doddachinnappa) made an application before the Senior Geologist for transfer of the licence/lease in favour of the petitioner. The said application was accepted by an order dtd. 26/12/2013. The quarry lease/licence in question was transferred in favour of the petitioner. The original licensee also executed a deed of transfer of the quarry lease/licence in a requisite form [Form-T] on 19/12/2013.

(3.) The petitioner made an application for renewal of the quarry lease on 30/12/2013, which was rejected by an order dtd. 18/1/2014. The petitioner challenged the said rejection order before the Revisional Authority by filing a Revision Application No.71/2019-20. Although, respondent No.5 passed an order dtd. 18/1/2014 rejecting the petitioner's application, the same was not communicated to the petitioner at the material time. The petitioner claims that he had visited the office of respondent No.5 in the month of September 2019 to enquire about the status of his application for renewal of quarry lease/licence in question and was informed about the rejection order. The petitioner also claims that he had applied for a copy of the said order under the Right to Information Act, 2005 [the RTI Act] and secured the same. He claims that immediately, on receiving a copy of the impugned order, he filed the revision petition.