HARISINGH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN application seeking grant of a quarrying lease in respect of 20 guntas of land in Sy. No. 224 of Minajagi Village in Muddebihal Taluk, Bijapur District was filed by the petitioner with the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology. No intimation about the fate of that application was sent to the petitioner, although in terms of Rule 10 of Karnataka Minor Mineral Rules, 1969, such an intimation was required to be sent in case the Competent Authority refused to grant the lease. On the contrary, by a notification dated 13-7-1992 the area in question was leased out in favour of the 4th respondent for quarrying what are known as Shahabad Stones. Aggrieved, the petitioner has called in question the validity of the said notification.

(2.) MR. Patil, Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the grant of a lease in favour of the 4th respondent only showed that an application had been received from the said respondent also. Any such application should therefore according to the learned Counsel have been considered along with the application made by the petitioner. No such consideration appears to have been accorded to the petitioner's application while that made by the 4th respondent was granted. The failure of the Competent Officer to issue an intimation in terms of Rule 10 of the rules afore-mentioned, was also according to Mr. Patil, suggestive of non-consideration of the petitioner's application rendering the impugned notification unsustainable.

(3.) MRS. Rosa Paramel, Counsel appearing for the respondents 1, 2 and 3, on the other hand argued that the application made by the 4th respondent was received on 24th of June, 1992, whereas that sent by the petitioner was received three days later on 27th of June, 1992. She urged that as per Rule 7 of the Rules, if more than one applications were received for a quarrying lease over the same area, preference had to be given to the applicant whose application was prior in point of time. The application of the 4th respondent having been received earlier than that of the petitioner, the grant of lease in his favour was according to the learned Counsel perfectly justified in the light of the statutory preference prescribed by Rule 7.