B.T.MANOHARA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.

(2.) The application made for grant of quarrying lease by the petitioner was rejected vide endorsement dated 11th April 2007. A revision petition was filed by the petitioner against the said order. The revision petition was rejected on the ground that it was not filed within the stipulated limitation period of 60 days provided under sub-rule (1) of Rule 53 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short, 'the said Rules).

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the revision application ought not to have been rejected on the ground of bar of limitation as the endorsement was never communicated. That is the contention raised in paragraphs 11 to 14 of the writ petition. The learned counsel also pointed out that in the revision application itself it was mentioned that a true copy of the endorsement was not received earlier and for the first time it was received on 11th February 2010. The revision petition was filed on 15th February 2010.