SMT. RATHNAMMA Vs. A. KRISHNAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition seeks a mandamus directing respondents 2 and 3 to renew the quarry lease earlier held by the petitioner, and for a certiorari quashing order dated 4th Oct., 1990 passed by the 4th respondent, Tribunal in Revision Petition Nos. 229 of 1989 and 117 of 1990.

(2.) A quarrying lease in respect of 1 acre of land in Sy. No. 27 of Malasandra Village, Bangalore South Taluk, granted in favour of the petitioner, for a period of 5 years, was prematurely terminated by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, by his order dated 16th of Aug., 1988. The petitioner questioned the said order before the Director in a revision which was allowed and the termination set-aside by his order dated 6th Nov., 1989.

(3.) The Director's order notwithstanding, a lease for the area in question was granted in favour of the first respondent on 14th June, 1990, who in turn preferred Revision Petition No. 229 of 1989 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal against the revisional order passed by the Director inter aria on the ground that the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner was beyond time. In the meanwhile, the lease period of the petitioner's lease having expired, the petitioner made an application for its renewal on 23rd Aug., 1989. This application was in terms of an interim order passed by the Tribunal, directed to be considered after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as also the 1st respondent. Consequently, the Deputy Director heard the petitioner and the 1st respondent on 21st of May, 1990 and 23rd of May, 1990, but eventually rejected the prayer for renewal by his order dated 28th May, 1990. While, doing so, the Deputy Director held that the petitioner had not submitted the prescribed returns and that the lease had been sublet and was being operated by one Nandulal. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed Revision Petition No. 117 of 1990 before the Tribunal in terms of Rule 61(1)(b) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1969. The Tribunal has by its common order dated 4th Oct., 1990 disposed of both the revision petitions. Insofar as Revision Petition No. 229 of 1989 is concerned, the Tribunal has allowed the same holding that it was unnecessary for the Deputy Director to have issued a notice to the petitioner before terminating her lease. Order dated 6th Nov., 1989 passed by the Director setting aside the termination has thus been reversed and the termination of the lease upheld. As regards Revision Petition No. 117 of 1990, filed by the petitioner, the Tribunal has dismissed the same on the ground that the order refusing the renewal was fully justified in the context of the reasons given by the Deputy Director. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing the order passed by the Tribunal as also for a mandamus directing the respondents to renew the lease in her favour.