- 1 -

WP No. 2922 of 2023

C/W WP No. 10370 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5

TH

DAY OF MARCH, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

WRIT PETITION NO. 2922 OF 2023 (GM-MM_S)

C/W

WRIT PETITION NO. 10370 OF 2022 (GM-MM_S)

IN WP No. 2922/2023

BETWEEN:

M/S VIVEK EXPORTS

REG UNDER THE INDIAN

PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932

HAVING ITS REGISTERED

OFFICE AT NO. 30/1, 2

ND

CROSS

CHIKKANA GARDEN, SHANKARPURA

BANGALORE - 560032

REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER

SHRI N NANDA KUMAR

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. D.L.N. RAO, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W

SRI. SRINIVASA C, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

DEPT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES

VIKASA SOUDHA

BANGALORE - 560001

REP BY ITS SECRETARY

- 2 -

WP No. 2922 of 2023

C/W WP No. 10370 of 2022

2. THE DIRECTOR

DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY

KHANIJA BHAVAN,

RACE COURSE ROAD

BANGALORE - 560001

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R1 & R2)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE

NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY WRIT OR ORDER AND

QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20/01/2016 PASSED

BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 BEARING

NO.SAM.GA.BHUE/C.M.N/KA GA GU-/KA GA GU SAM-439/01,

2015-16 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

IN WP NO. 10370/2022

BETWEEN:

KUM INTERNATIONALS

SY. NO. 439/2, 9TH K.M.

BADANAGUPPE VILLAGE

MYSORE ROAD,

CHAMARAJANAGARA 571313

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER

SRI. V.ANANTHA KUMAR

AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

R/O BILIGIRI, B.R. HILLS ROAD,

CHAMARAJANAGARA 571313

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. B V VIDYULATHA.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

AND INDUSTRIES

- 3 -

WP No. 2922 of 2023

C/W WP No. 10370 of 2022

VIKASA SOUDHA

BANGALORE 560 001

BY ITS SECRETARY

2. THE DIRECTOR

DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY

KHANIJA BHAVANA

RACE COURSE ROAD,

BANGALORE 560 001

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF

CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER SIMILAR WRIT, ORDER OR

DIRECTION, QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 10/12/2020 OF

THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEARING

NO.GABHUUE/UUNI(KKA.AA)/KAGAGUASA-58/08-09/2020-

21/4782 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-M

TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND

RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR

PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED

AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU ,CHIEF JUSTICE

and

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

CAV ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)

1. Writ Petition No.10370/2022 [subject 'A' writ petition] is filed

calling in question the endorsement dated 10.12.2020 issued by

the Director, Department of Mines and Geology, whereunder the

- 4 -

WP No. 2922 of 2023

C/W WP No. 10370 of 2022

application for grant of quarry lease [Quarry Lease Application

No.58/2008-2009 dated 13.08.2008] filed by the writ petitioner -

M/s KUM Internationals [KUM] was rejected. In the said writ

petition a direction was also sought for execution of the Quarry

Lease Deed in respect of the area applied for by KUM.

2. Writ Petition No.2922/2023 [subject 'B' writ petition] is filed

calling in question the endorsement dated 22.01.2016 issued by

the Director of Department of Mines and Geology, whereunder the

revision petition filed by the writ petitioner - M/s Vivek Exports

[Vivek Exports] has been rejected. The said writ petitioner has

also sought for consideration of the representation made by it

seeking to grant extension of Quarry Lease No.439 for a period of

50 years from the date of original grant.

3. Since the land which is the subject matter of

leases/applications in both writ petitions overlap, they are taken up

together for consideration.

Background facts

4. Vide Quarry Lease No.1915, one Mr.Zia-Ul-Haq was granted

permission for quarrying ornamental stone and black granite over

an area of 50 acres in Survey No.184 of Jyothigondanapura

- 5 -

WP No. 2922 of 2023

C/W WP No. 10370 of 2022

Village, Chamarajanagar Taluk, Mysore District [subject property]

for a period of 5 years from 27.02.1978, which expired on

27.02.1983. The renewal was granted on 18.01.1983 for a period

of 5 years w.e.f., 27.02.1983 (Quarry Lease No.3765). It is

contented that a second renewal was applied for on 24.11.1987.

Writ Petition No.4717/1987 was filed by the said Mr.Zia-Ul-Haq to

consider his renewal application.

5. The Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 19 69

[KMMC Rules 1969] was amended vide KMMC (Amendment)

Rules, 1979 and Rule 3A was introduced to prevent quarry lease to

be granted to private persons. The said Mr.Zia-Ul-Haq filed Writ

Petition No.20544/1990 challenging the validity of Rule 3A of the

KMMC 1969 Rules (Amended in 1990). A learned Single Judge of

this Court vide interim order dated 16.10.1990 granted stay of Rule

3A and permitted the writ petitioner to carryon quarrying operations

subject to payment of royalty. Vide order dated 18.04.1991, the

said writ petition [WP No.20544/1990] was disposed of permitting

the writ petitioner to file a fresh application on or before 30.04.1991

and directed the State Government to consider the same within 3

months. Till then, it was ordered that status quo as on the said date

- 6 -

WP No. 2922 of 2023

C/W WP No. 10370 of 2022

should continue. It is contented that the writ petitioner had filed an

application for renewal on 30.04.1991.

6. On 18.06.1991, a Government Order [ GO] was issued

relaxing Rule 3A of the KMMC Rules. Based on the said GO,

leases were granted including Quarry Lease Nos.6270 and 6271 in

favour of Mr.Zia-Ul-Haq. A public interest litigation in Writ Petition

No.14783-14241/1991 was filed challenging the said GO dated

18.06.1991, which relaxed Rule 3A of the KMMC Rules. The said

writ petition [WP No.14783-14241/1991] was allowed by a learned

Single Judge on 13.03.1992 and the said GO dated 18.06.1991

was quashed. Mr.Zia-Ul-Haq and some other lease holders from

amongst the 203 persons, who were granted leases, filed Writ

Appeal No.1464-65/1993 challenging the order of the learned

Single Judge. The said appeal [WA No.1464-65/1993] was

dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench on 25.06.1993. The challenge

made before the Supreme Court by some of the lease holders [Civil

Appeal Nos.1683-1716/1996 with Nos.1717 to 1789/1996 was

rejected by the Supreme Court on 18.01.1996 [Alankar Granites

Industries and others vs. P.G.R.Scindia, MLA and ot hers:

(1996) 7 SCC 416].

- 7 -

WP No. 2922 of 2023

C/W WP No. 10370 of 2022

7. In the meanwhile, the KMMC Rules, 1994 came into force

and 1969 Rules were repealed. Writ Petition No.4717/1987 c/w

Writ Petition No.2072/1988, whereunder the said Mr.Zia-Ul-Haq

had sought for issuance of quarrying permit pursuant to Quarry

Lease No. 3765 and for striking down Rule 3A of the KMMC Rules

1969 was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court, vide

order dated 20.02.1995 permitting the petitioner to make an

application under the KMMC Rules, 1994, within 2 months, which

was required to be disposed of in accordance with law. Until the

applications were disposed of, status quo as on the said date was

ordered to be continued.

8. In the proceedings of the meeting of the Committ ee

constituted under Rule 11 of the KMMC Rules, 1994 held on

11.06.1999 with regard to grant of quarry leases over the subject

property, the application pertaining to QL No.3765 (QLR/44/94) of

Mr.Zia-Ul-Haq, whereunder an extent of 25 acres of the subject

property was applied for, was recommended to be granted for an

extent of 10 acres; the application pertaining to QL No.6271

(QLR/27/94), whereunder an extent of 25 acres of the subject

property was applied for, was recommended to be rejected since

the same exceeded the limit. Vide notification bearing No.CI 400

- 8 -

WP No. 2922 of 2023

C/W WP No. 10370 of 2022

MMN 99 dated 21.12.2000 lease over an extent of 15 acres was

granted in the subject property in favour of Mr.Zia-Ul-Haq, Partner

of Vivek Exports, for quarrying black granite for a period of 10

years, consequent to which, Quarry Lease Deed [QL No.439] was

executed on 21.05.2001. It is pertinent to note here that in the

proceedings of the Rule 11 Committee, the name of the applicant

was Mr. Zia-Ul-Haq whereas the notification and the lease deed

was issued in favour of Mr.Zia-Ul-Haq, Partner, Vivek Exports.

9. An application was filed by KUM for grant of quarry lease

over an extent of 20 acres in the subject property on 06.08.2008

[which included an area of 5 acres, which was granted vide QL

No.439]. An endorsement dated 11.01.2010 was issued rejecting

the application filed by KUM on the ground that the applied area

overlaps with the existing quarry lease of Vivek Exports. Being

aggrieved, KUM preferred Writ Petition No.9325/2009 seeking to

quash QL No.439. A Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order

dated 04.01.2011 disposed of the said writ petition. The relevant

portion of the said order is as under:

"4. The aforestated facts are relevant because

the petitioner had applied for a quarrying lease, and the

claim of the petitioner was declined through the

impugned order dated 11.1.2010 (Annexure-L) on

account of the fact, that the Presiding Officer (Mines)

was of the view, that "the Committee resolved to reject

- 9 -

WP No. 2922 of 2023

C/W WP No. 10370 of 2022

the application because the applied area overlaps with

the existing leases". It is not disputed that reference in

the impugned order in respect of "existing lease", was in

respect of none other but respondent no.3.

5. The facts narrated hereinabove reveal, that the lease granted to respondent no.3 on 26.6.1991 was

invalid, as a natural consequence thereof, the renewal

of the lease dated 26.6.1991 on 21.12.2000 was

implicitly invalid and the same is accordingly liable to be

set aside, and as such, is hereby set aside. Thus

viewed, there was no subsisting valid lease over the

applied area. As such, we are satisfied, that the

rejection of the claim of the petitioner through the

impugned order dated 11.1.2010(Annexure-L) was

based on an invalid consideration. Thus, viewed, the

order dated 11.1.2010 is liable to be set aside and the

same is accordingly hereby set aside.

6. In view of the above, we hereby direct the

competent authority to reconsider the claim of the

petitioner in accordance with law. Needless to mention,

that if respondent no.3 has a subsisting valid claim, it

will be open to respondent no.3 to substantiate his claim

before competent authority.

7. Disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

8. Since the main petition has been disposed of,

pending Misc.Writ Nos. 10382/10, 11973/10, 10082/09

are accordingly, disposed of."

(emphasis supplied)

10. The said order [Order dated 04.01.2011 passed in WP

No.9325/2009] was challenged by Vivek Exports [SLP (Civil)

No.5123/2011 - numbered as Civil Appeal No.7773/2014] before

the Supreme Court. Vide judgment dated 19.08.2014, the Supreme

Court dismissed the said appeal. Thereafter, the Director,

Department of Mines and Geology vide endorsement da ted

- 10 -

WP No. 2922 of 2023

C/W WP No. 10370 of 2022

22.01.2016 rejected the application filed by Vivek Exports, which

has been called in question in Writ Petition No.2922/2023 [subject

'B' writ petition].

11. In the meanwhile, KUM had filed Writ Petition No.2060/2015

for a direction to consider its application dated 06.08.2008 for grant

of quarry lease over an area of 20 acres. A Coordinate Bench of

this Court vide order dated 05.02.2015 disposed of the said writ

petition by recording the submission of the State that the said

application would be considered within six weeks. Subsequently,

the Committee constituted as per Rule 11(4) of the KMMC Rules

recommended for rejection of the application of KUM, which was

communicated vide communication dated 11.01.2016.

12. KUM preferred Writ Petition No.14403/2016 to quash the

recommendation of the Rule 11 Committee. In the meanwhile, vide

notification dated 22.11.2000 an extent of 5 acres in the subject

property was notified for grant of quarry lease to quarry black

granite. A Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated

26.09.2016 disposed of the said writ petition by directing the

authorities to consider the application of KUM to an extent of 5

acres as covered in the notification dated 20.11.2000. Vide

endorsement dated 25.03.2017/04.04.2017 the application of KUM

- 11 -

WP No. 2922 of 2023

C/W WP No. 10370 of 2022

was rejected as the same was ineligible under Rule 8B(1) of the

KMMC (Amendment) Rules, 2016. Being aggrieved, KUM

preferred Writ Petition No.29691/2017. A Coordinate Bench of this

Court vide order dated 09.10.2018 disposed of the writ petition by

directing consideration of the application of KUM. Subsequently, an

endorsement dated 10.12.2020 was issued, whereunder the

application of KUM for grant of quarry lease to quarry black granite

over 5 acres of land in the subject property was rejected as the

same does not come under Rule 8B(2)(a) to (e) of the KMMC

(Amendment) Rules, 2016. The same has been challenged by

KUM in Writ Petition No.10370/2022 [subject 'A' writ petition].

Discussion & Reasoning:

I. Re. the application of Vivek Exports (WP.No.2922/2023):

13. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the right sought to be

asserted by Vivek Exports pursuant to the renewal of the lease on

21.12.2000 has been adjudicated by this Court vide order dated

04.01.2011 passed in Writ Petition No.9325/2009, whereunder it

was held that the lease was "implicitly invalid" and was set aside. It

was also held that the said lease "was not a subsisting valid lease".

Although the said order dated 04.01.2011 passed in Writ Petition

No.9325/2009 was challenged by Vivek Exports before the

- 12 -

WP No. 2922 of 2023

C/W WP No. 10370 of 2022

Supreme Court [SLP (Civil) No.5123/2011 - numbered as Civil

Appeal No.7773/2014], the same was dismissed vide judgment

dated 19.08.2014. Hence, the finding that QL No.439 was invalid

has attained finality.

14. The subject 'B' writ petition was filed by Vivek Exports calling

in question the endorsement dated 22.01.2016 passed by

respondent No.2 - Director, Department of Mines and Geology as

also to consider the representations of Vivek Exports to extend QL

No.439 for 15 acres of the subject property up to 50 years from the

date of the original grant as per Rule 8A(2) of the KMMC

(Amendment) Rules, 2016. In this context, it is pertinent to note

that vide the endorsement dated 22.01.2016 it was noticed that QL

No.439 granted to Vivek Exports was void ab initio and hence, it

was decided that the area of lease under QL No.439 has to be

notified under Rule 8A and 8B of the KMMC Rules 1994 and

disposed of vide tender-cum-auction.

15. As rightly noticed by the official respondents, the claim of

Vivek Exports for renewal of lease was decided vide to the

judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court (order dated

04.01.2011 passed in Writ Petition No.9325/2009). It has been

categorically held "that the renewal of QL No.439 on 21.12.2000

- 13 -

WP No. 2922 of 2023

C/W WP No. 10370 of 2022

was implicitly invalid and the same is accordingly, liable to be set

aside and as such, set aside". The challenge made by Vivek

Exports to the said order has been rejected by the Supreme Court

(order dated 19.08.2014 passed in SLP (C) No.5123/ 2011

numbered as Civil Appeal No.7773/2014).

16. It is sought to be contended on behalf of Vivek Exports that

QL No.439 is eligible for an extension of 30 years from 21.12.2000

as per Rule 8A(2) of the KMMC (Amendment) Rules 201 6 or

alternatively as per Rule 6 of the Granite Conservation and

Development Rules,1999 [GCD Rules]. It is also contended that

the KMMC Rules was amended vide GO dated 17.03.2023 ,

whereunder quarry leases granted before the commencement of

the KMMC (Amendment) Rules, 2016 shall be deemed to have

been granted for 50 years. Hence, it was contended that Vivek

Exports was entitled to statutory grant of lease for a period of 50

years from 27.02.1978. It was also contended that the Supreme

Court vide order 19.08.2014 passed in Civil Appeal No.7773/2014,

held that Vivek Exports has to establish a subsisting valid claim

before the competent authority. Hence, it was contended that it had

sought for the statutory extension of QL No.439 for 30 years w.e.f.,

27.02.1978 and subsequent to the KMMC (Amendment) R ules,

- 14 -

WP No. 2922 of 2023

C/W WP No. 10370 of 2022

2023, it sought for a further period of 50 years. It was also

contended that a renewal can be granted from an original grant and

it is to be considered as a fresh lease/fresh grant.

17. The thrust of the contention of Vivek Exports is that the

original lease (QL No.1915) granted on 27.02.1978 was being

periodically renewed and under the said circumstances, QL No.

439 was granted.

In this context, it is pertinent to note that

subsequent to QL No.1915, QL No.3765 was granted for a period

of 5 years, which was valid till 26.02.1988. Under Rule 16 of the

KMMC rules 1969, an application for renewal of lease was to be

made 90 days before the expiry of the lease and if such an

application is not disposed of within that period, it shall deemed to

have been refused. Further, Rule 3A of the KMMC (Amendment)

Rules, 1979 specifically provided that no lease for quarrying black

granite shall be granted to private persons. Writ Petition

No.4717/1987 c/w Writ Petition No.2072/1988 was filed by Mr.Zia-

Ul-Haq to strike down the said Rule 3A. During the pendency of the

said writ petition, on 22.05.1990 Rule 3A was substituted,

whereunder it was stipulated that no lease for quarrying black, pink,

green, yellow or multicolour granite shall be granted for renewal.

The said Rule 3A was challenged by Mr.Zia-Ul-Haq in Writ Petition

- 15 -

WP No. 2922 of 2023

C/W WP No. 10370 of 2022

No.20544/1990. Vide interim order dated 16.10.1990, a learned

single judge of this Court granted stay of the said Rule 3A. Vide

order dated 18.04.1991, Writ Petition No.20544/1990 was disposed

of by the learned Single Judge noticing the Division Bench

judgments of this Court and accordingly, granted liberty to Mr.Zia-

Ul-Haq to file a fresh application for grant of lease within

30.04.1991.

18. Mr.Zia-Ul-Haq was granted QL Nos.6270 and 6271 pursuant

to GO dated 18.06.1991. The said GO dated 18.06.1991 was

quashed by a learned single judge of this Court, which decision

was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court as well as the

Supreme Court. Subsequently, Mr.Zia-Ul-Haq has sought for

renewal of QL No.6270. The said renewal was sought by placing

reliance on Rule 59 of the KMMC Rules 1994, which came into

force on 28.04.1994. Rule 59 dealt with transitionary provisions and

stipulated as under:

"59. Transitory Provisions - (1) Where any person who

had already applied under the repealed rules for

obtaining a quarying lease or permit and such

application is pending consideration immediately prior to

the commencement of these rules, such person may,

within thirty days from such commencement, apply

afresh for grant or renewal of quarrying lease or permit

under these rules."

- 16 -

WP No. 2922 of 2023

C/W WP No. 10370 of 2022

19. The GO dated 18.06.1991 on the reliance of which QL

Nos.6270 and 6271 was granted, having been quashed by the

Supreme Court, the question of Mr.Zia-Ul-Haq taking the benefit of

Rule 59 of the KMMC Rules, 1994 does not arise. Further, as

already noticed, a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated

04.01.2011 passed in Writ Petition No.9325/2009 had held that the

lease granted to Vivek Exports was “invalid” and had quashed the

same. The challenge made by Vivek Exports to the said order

dated 04.01.2011 was dismissed by the Supreme Court. Hence,

the order dated 04.01.2011 passed by this Court has attained

finality.

20. Although, it is sought to be contended that the order dated

04.01.2011 passed in Writ Petition No.9325/2009 was under an

erroneous presumption that the lease of Vivek Exports was a fresh

lease and not a renewal, having regard to the findings recorded in

the said order dated 04.01.2011 and the said findings not having

been interfered with by the Supreme Court, the contention of Vivek

Exports is untenable and liable to be rejected. The official

respondents were justified in issuing the endorsement dated

22.01.2016 rejecting the application of Vivek Exports.

- 17 -

WP No. 2922 of 2023

C/W WP No. 10370 of 2022

21. Another aspect which has to be noted is that th e

endorsement rejecting the application of Vivek Exports was passed

on 22.01.2016 and the writ petition challenging the same was filed

on 03.02.2023 i.e., after an inordinate delay of 7 years. This Court

vide order dated 06.02.2023 passed in Writ Petition No.2922/2023

called upon the writ petitioner to file an additional affidavit

explaining the delay. Although in the affidavit dated 29.11.2023

filed on behalf of Vivek Exports, it is sought to be contended that it

learnt regarding the rejection in the second week of February, 2016

and that since a demand notice dated 31.12.2019 was issued

seeking for dead rent, it was under the impression that the lease

was subsisting. However, there is no explanation forthcoming as to

why the rejection order dated 22.01.2016 was not challenged up to

the year 2019. Further, it has been deposed that they have

approached their legal team for legal opinion and in the meantime,

the deponent (Managing Director of Vivek Exports) fell ill and

remained inactive for about 6 months. There are no documents

produced to demonstrate the same. It is deposed that thereafter

they have filed the writ petition.

22. It is clear that there is no valid explanation set out for the

inordinate delay of 7 years in filing the writ petition. The writ

- 18 -

WP No. 2922 of 2023

C/W WP No. 10370 of 2022

petition filed by Vivek Exports (Writ Petition No.2292/2023) is liable

to be rejected both on the ground of delay as well as on merits.

II. Re. the application of KUM (WP.No.10370/2022):

23. With regard to the application made by KUM, it is to be

noticed that the application was initially made for an extent of 20

acres of the subject land on 06.08.2008 which included an extent of

5 acres which was already part of the quarry lease which was

granted to Mr. Zia-Ul-Haq / Vivek Exports. Hence, vide

endorsement dated 11.01.2010, application of KUM was rejected,

which was called in question in W.P. No.9325/2009. Vide order

dated 04.01.2011, a Coordinate Bench of this Court held that the

lease executed in favour of Vivek Exports was 'invalid' and set

aside the same and directed the consideration of application filed

by KUM. The said order of this Court was upheld by the Supreme

Court [Order dated 19.08.2014 passed in SLP (Civil)

No.5123/2011].

24. Thereafter, vide endorsement dated 11.01.2016, the

application of KUM was rejected holding that the applied area

attracts Rule 8-A of the KMMC Rules, 1994 and was required to be

auctioned as per Rule 8-B of the said Rules. The rejection was

- 19 -

WP No. 2922 of 2023

C/W WP No. 10370 of 2022

called in question in W.P. No. 14403/2016. In the meanwhile, an

extent of 5 acres of land in the subject property was notified vide

notification dated 20.11.2000 for grant of quarry lease and

applications for the same were called for. Vide order dated

26.09.2016, a Coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the said

petition (WP.No.14403/2016) directing that the application of the

petitioner for grant of lease be considered for an extent of 5 acres

as covered by the notification dated 20.11.2000.

25. Rule 8B(1) of the KMMC Rules (Amendment) Rules, 2016

(as amended on 12.08.2016) stipulates that all applications

received and pending for grant of lease or license prior to the said

Rule coming into force, shall become ineligible. However, Sub-rule

2 of Rule 8B provided exceptions to Sub-rule (1) whereunder, it

was provided that the application shall remain eligible under certain

situations namely, if they are received upon the notification issued

under Rule 8B, which existed prior to the 2016 Amendment; where

the Committee under Rule 11 had recommended for grant of lease

or license before the commencement of the 2016 Rules; where the

minerals are reclassified as minor minerals by the Central

Government; where the applications were pending for which no

- 20 -

WP No. 2922 of 2023

C/W WP No. 10370 of 2022

objection certificates have been received before commencement of

the 2016 Rules; etc.

26. Vide endorsement dated 25.03.2017/4.4.2017, the

application of KUM was rejected on the ground that it was not

saved as per Rule 8-B(2) of the KMMC Rules, 1994 as amended

under Rule 8-B(1) of the KMMC (Amendment) Rules 2016.

27. The rejection by endorsement dated 25.03.2017/04.04.2017

was called in question by KUM in W.P. No. 29691/2017. Vide order

dated 09.10.2018, a Coordinate Bench of this Court allowed the

said writ petition, set aside the endorsement and directed

consideration of the application of the petitioner within 4 weeks. In

the said order dated 09.10.2018, it was noticed that a batch of

similar petitions, where applications were pending and where

similar endorsements were issued, this Court had set aside the

endorsements and directed consideration of the applications. It was

noticed that under Rule 8(5), it was the responsibility of the

authorities to furnish an NOC and the applications could not have

been rejected for the omission of the said authorities. Hence, in

parity with the other orders passed by this Court, the said order

dated 09.10.2018 was passed. Pursuant to the same, by the

endorsement dated 10.12.2020, the application of the petitioner

- 21 -

WP No. 2922 of 2023

C/W WP No. 10370 of 2022

was considered and rejected. In the said endorsement, it was

noticed that no objection reports were not received from the Deputy

Commissioner and Deputy Conservator of Forest. Further, the

application of KUM was required to be considered under the

KMMC (Amendment) Rules, 2016 and it was held that since the no

objection from the other Departments were not received prior to

12.08.2016, the same could not be considered. Hence, it was

ordered that the applied area be granted only by way of auction as

per Rule 9-A(2) of the KMMC (Amendment) Rules, 2016. The said

endorsement dated 10.12.2020 is called in question in the subject

'A' writ petition.

28. Vide the endorsement dated 10.12.2020, it was held that “no

objection letter/report” for the applied area had not been received

prior to 12.08.2016 and that the area applied for was a held area

prior to 2016. Basis the said reasoning, the official respondents had

issued the endorsement dated 10.12.2020. It is clear that having

regard to the order dated 9.10.2018 passed in WP no. 29691/2017,

the official respondents were required to consider the application of

KUM for quarrying black granite over 5 acres of the subject

property. This Court, vide the said order dated 09.10.2018 had

specifically set aside the endorsement in question and had directed

- 22 -

WP No. 2922 of 2023

C/W WP No. 10370 of 2022

consideration of the application of KUM since under Rule 8(5) it

was for the authorities concerned to request for the NOC from

various departments. The application of the petitioner having been

pending from the year 2010, non-consideration of the application of

the petitioner for not having received No objection letter/report prior

to 12.08.2016 does not arise.

29. Rule 8-B(1) of the KMMC (Amendment) Rules, 2016 (which

came into effect from 12.08.2016) stipulated that all applications

received and pending for grant of lease or license prior to the date

of commencement of the said rules shall become inel igible

including the applications received for minor minerals.

30. Rule 8-B(1) of the KMMC (Amendment) Rules, 2023 (which

came into effect from 17.03.2023) stated that all applications

received for grant of lease prior to the commencement of the 2016

Rules shall become eligible including the applications for grant of

minor minerals.

31. A reading of the order dated 9.10.2018 passed in W.P.

No.29691/2017 and taking into consideration the effect of the

KMMC (Amendment) Rules, 2023, it is clear that the application of

- 23 -

WP No. 2922 of 2023

C/W WP No. 10370 of 2022

KUM for grant of lease of 5 acres of the subject property as notified

in the notification dated 20.11.2000 was required to be considered.

32. Another aspect to be noticed is that under Rule 8(5) of the

KMMC (Amendment) Rules, 2013, which was noticed by this Court

in its order dated 9.10.2018 passed in W.P No.29691/2017, the

onus was on the Senior Geologist to request for NOCs from

various other departments. However, by virtue of the KMMC

(Amendment) Rules, 2024, which came into force w.e. f.,

02.01.2025, the said Rule 8(5) has been amended and the onus of

securing the NOCs from various departments is now put on the

applicant. However, having regard to the fact that it is the Senior

Geologist who is required to call for the NOCs from various

departments/authorities and the said authorities were required to

consider the same and give their response, the applicant for the

lease can at best be a facilitator to the said process. The onus of

requesting for the NOCs and consideration of the said request is

clearly on the respective authorities.

33. The reliance sought to be placed on the order d ated

16.08.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.10601/2019 wherein, Rule

8B of the KMMC (Amendment) Rules, 2016 has been held to be

valid, would not aid the case of the official respondents having

- 24 -

WP No. 2922 of 2023

C/W WP No. 10370 of 2022

regard to the fact that the application of KUM has been pending

since the year 2010 and various orders have already been passed,

as has been noticed above, for consideration of the said

application. As also since the NOCs have already been submitted

by KUM at the prior point of time. The onus is on the official

respondents to secure the necessary reports / NOCs from the other

departments.

34. It is also pertinent to note that KUM had made its application

and had also furnished NOCs, which have been annexed with the

writ petition (Annexure-J series).

35. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that vide KMMC

(Amendment) Rules, 2024 (which has come into effect from

02.01.2025), a proviso has been added to Rule 8(5), which reads

as under:

"

Provided also that, if the No Objection Certificates are

not received to the Commissioner or Director or

jurisdictional Deputy Director or Senior Geologist within

a period prescribed in the said provisos, the application

shall be deemed to have been rejected and the area

shall be notified for grant of lease through auction."

36. The said proviso to Rule 8(5) contemplates that the grant of

lease be notified through auction where NOCs are not received.

- 25 -

WP No. 2922 of 2023

C/W WP No. 10370 of 2022

However, in the present case, as noticed above, NOCs have been

placed on record in the writ petition.

37. Having regard to the aforementioned discussion, the relief

sought for by KUM in the subject 'A' writ petition merits

consideration.

38. It is also the contention of KUM that in similar matters,

pursuant to the order of the Coordinate Bench of this Court setting

aside the previous endorsements and directing consideration of the

applications, the report of the relevant authorities were requested

by the department of Mines and Geology, which was submitted by

the relevant authorities and thereafter, it was recommended for

grant of the quarry lease. Copies of the orders passed by this

Court as well as the subsequent orders passed by the official

respondents recommending the grant of lease, have b een

produced along with the writ petition (Annexure-N series).

39. In view of the aforementioned, Writ Petition No.2922/2023

(filed by Vivek Exports) is dismissed. Writ Petition No.10370/2022

(filed by KUM) is allowed. The endorsement dated 10.12.2020

passed by respondent No.2 - Director of Mines and Geology, is

quashed. The respondents are directed to issue nec essary

- 26 -

WP No. 2922 of 2023

C/W WP No. 10370 of 2022

notification and execute the Lease Deed in favour of KUM with

respect to the area notified under the notification dated 20.11.2000,

within four weeks from date.

40. All pending applications are stand disposed of.

Sd/-

(VIBHU BAKHRU)

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

(C.M. POONACHA)

JUDGE

ND/BS/Vmb