Karnataka High Court
B A Channarayappa vs State Of Karnataka on 27 July, 2023
Bench: Chief Justice, M.G.S. Kamal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF JULY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION No.14621 OF 2022 (GM-MMS)
C/W
WRIT PETITION No.1994 OF 2020 (GM-MMS)
WRIT PETITON No.1999 OF 2020 (GM-MMS)
WRIT PETITION No.1656 OF 2022 (GM-MMS)
IN WP. NO.14621 OF 2022
BETWEEN :
SRI CHANDRAPPA
S/O DODDAVENKATESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/O DANAVALLI VILLAGE
CHAKARASANAHALLI POST
NARASAPURA HOBLI - 563 101
KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.VIKRAM HUILGOL. SR. ADVOCATE FOR
Ms. DHEEMANTHIKA GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
AND INDUSTRIES
2
VIKAS SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR AND COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
KHANIJA BHAVANA
RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGLAURU - 560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
AND THE CHAIRMAN
DISTRICT TASK FORCE ( MINES COMMITTEE
D C OFFICE COMPOUND
NH 75940
KOLAR DISTRICT
KOLAR - 563 101.
4. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST
AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
DISTRICT ADMINISTARATION BUILDING
KUMBARAHALLI
KOLAR - 563 103.
5. SRI. KRISHNAPPA
S/O DODDADASAPPA
MAJOR
R/O MANCHANDAHALLI VILLAGE
KURGAL POST
KOLAR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 103.
5(a) SMT. RATNAMMA
W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
R/AT HOBALAPURA VILLAGE
HUNGENAHALLI PANCHAYAT
DODDAKADTHURPOST
MALUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 103.
3
5(b) SMT. PREMA
W/O NARAYANASWAMY
D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT HOBALAPURA VILLAGE
HUNGENAHALLI PANCHAYAT
DODDAKADTHUR POST
MALUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 103.
5(c) SMT. MUNILAKSHAMMA
W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT KHAJIKALLAHALLI VILLAGE
NARASAPURA POST
KOLAR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 103.
5(d) SRI. DEVARAJ
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT HOBALAPURA VILLAGE
HUNGENAHALLI PANCHAYAT
DODDAKADTHUR POST
MALUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 103.
5(e) SMT. ASHA
W/O GANESH
D/O LATE KRISHANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT BALIGANAHALLI VILLAGE
MARIKUPPA, KGF
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. B.J. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R5(a) TO R5(e)
4
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
a)ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR
DIRECTION, DIRECTING TO QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE
GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED:07/11/2019 BEARING
NO.JI.AA.KO/KAGAGU/ADHISUCHANE/2019-20 ISSUED BY 3RD
RESPONDENT DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, PUBLISHED IN THE
OFFICIAL GAZETTE DATED:05/12/2019 WITHOUT ANY
AUTHORITY OF LAW AND/OR SOURCE OF POWER PRODUCED
AT ANNEXURE-H; AND/OR b)ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR
ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE OR QUASH
THE GRANT NOTIFICATION AT ANNEXURE-D DATED
23/10/2020, TO THE FIFTH RESPONDENT.
IN WP NO. 1994 OF 2020
BETWEEN :
B A CHANNARAYAPPA
S/O LATE ANNAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/O BELLURU VILLAGE
NARASAPURA POST-563 101
KOLAR TALUKA AND DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. B.V. VIDYULATHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001.
2 . THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
AND INDUSTIRES
VIKAS SOUDHA
5
BENGALURU-560 001.
3 . THE DIRECTOR AND COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF MINES
AND GEOLOGY
KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001.
4 . THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST
AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY
DEPARTMENT OF MINES
AND GEOLOGY
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
KUMBARAHALLI
KOLAR-563 103.
5 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
AND THE CHAIRMAN
DISTRICT TASK FORCE
(MINES) COMMITTEE
D C OFFICE COMPOUND
NH 75940
KOLAR DISTRICT
KOLAR-563 101.
6 SRI.NAGAPPA
S/O MUNISHYMAPPA
MAJOR
RESIDING AT DODDAVALLABHI VILLAGE
NARASAPURA HOBLI
KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT
7. DINNEHOSAHALLI DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR
SCHEDULE CASTE/SCHEDULE TRIBE
STONE QUARRY AND
COOLIE WORKERS
WELFARE SANGHA
DINNEHOSAHALLI VILLAGE
NARASPURA HOBLI
KOLAR DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY
6
ITS SECRETARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5;
R-6 & R-7 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION
PUBLISHED BY R-5 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WITHOUT
AUTHORITY OF LAW AND/OR SOURCE OF POWER DATED
05.12.2019/07.11.2019 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-K.
AND ETC.
IN WP NO. 1999 OF 2020
BETWEEN :
D.N. DEVARAJ
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/O DANAVALLI VILLAGE
CHAKARASANAHALLI POST-563 101.
KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOI. SR., ADVOCATE FOR
Ms. DHEEMANTHIKA GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001.
7
2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
AND INDUSTIRES
VIKAS SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE DIRECTOR AND COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
KHANIJA BHAVANA
RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001.
4. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST
AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY
DEPARTMENT OF MINES
AND GEOLOGY
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
KUMBARAHALLI
KOLAR-563 103.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
AND THE CHAIRMAN
DISTRICT TASK FORCE
(MINES) COMMITTEE
DC OFFICE COMPOUND
NH 75940, KOLAR DISTRICT
KOLAR-563 101.
6. KRISHNAPPA
S/O DODDA DASAPPA
MAJOR
R/AT MANCAHNDAHALLI VILLAGE
KURAGAL POST
KOLAR TALUK
KOLAR - 563 128.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5,
SRI.B.J.KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-6)
8
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION
DATED:07.11.2019 ISSUED BY R-5 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE DATED:05.12.2019
WITHOUT ANY AUTHORITY OF LAW AND/OR SOURCE OF
POWER PRODUCED AT ANENXURE-H. AND ETC.
IN WP NO. 1656 OF 2022
BETWEEN :
MR. KRISHNAPPA R
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
S/O LATE RAMAPPA
R/AT DINNEHOSAHALLI VILLAGE
DODDA VALLABHI POST
NARASAPURA HOBLI
KOLAR DISTRICT
KOLAR - 563 102.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. I. THARANATH POOJARY SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. ROHIT URS. D. ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
AND INDUSTRIES
VIKAS SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. DISTRICT TASK FORCE COMMITTEE
REP. BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KOLAR DISTRICT
9
KOLAR - 563 101.
3. SENIOR GEOLOGIST
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
KOLAR DISTRICT
KOLAR - 563 101.
4. SRI. NAGAPPA
S/O MUNISHAMAPPA
MAJOR
R/AT DODDAVALLABI VILLAGE
NARASAPURA HOBLI
KOLAR-563 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. NATARAJ BALLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
a)ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE
NOTIFICATION DATED:07/11/2019 MADE IN NO.G.A.
KO/KAGAGU/NOTIFICATION/2019-20 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT, ONLY IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO NOTIFYING
3.10 ACRES OF LAND IN SY.NO.58 OF BLOCK NO.1 IN
DINNEHOSAHALLI VILLAGE, KOLAR, PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED,
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY,
M.G.S.KAMAL J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
10
ORDER
Principal relief sought in all these writ petitions is quashment of Notification bearing No.JI AA CO/KAGA GU/Notification/2019-20 dated 07.11.2019 issued by the Deputy Commissioner and Chairman, District Task Force (Mines Committee, DC Office Compound, NH-75940 Kolar District, Kolar) published in the Official Gazette dated 05.12.2019, (hereinafter referred to as `impugned notification') pursuant to which the respondent authorities have granted quarrying lease to the private respondents in terms of Rule 3-F of the Karnataka Minor and Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 and Amended Rules 2016 (hereinafter referred to as `KMMC Rules' for short).
2. Since common facts and issues are involved in these writ petitions they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order.
Facts involved in these writ petitions:
3. W.P.No.1994/2020- 11 3.1 Petitioner -B.A.Channarayappa has filed this writ petition seeking;
(a) issue of writ of certiorari to quash the impugned notification issued by fifth respondent-Deputy Commissioner produced as Annexure-K;
(b) issue of writ of mandamus directing fourth respondent-Senior Geologist to pass appropriate orders for deemed extension in terms of newly inserted Rule 8-A of Karnataka Minor and Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, valid till 28.06.2026 considering the receipt of revenue and forest NOC dated 18.02.2019 and 04.01.2012 and also renewal application dated 25.03.2011 in respect of quarrying lease No.924 over of an area measuring 4.20 acres in Sy.No.58 of DinneHosahalli Village, Kolar District, produced at Annexure-H, E and B.
(c) to direct fourth respondent to grant extension of quarry lease from 29.06.2006 to 28.06.2021.
(d) issue writ of certiorari quashing grant of quarrying lease vide notification at Annexure-M and P dated 23.10.2020.
3.2 It is the case of the petitioner that he was issued a quarrying lease vide QL No.924 on 29.06.2006 which was valid for a period of five years till 28.06.2011 for the purpose of extracting ordinary building stones which is a non specified minor mineral covered under KMMC Rules in respect of an area measuring 4.20 acres in Sy.No.58 of DinneHosahalli Village, Kolar District. That 12 the petitioner had filed an application dated 25.03.2011 seeking renewal of the said lease in terms of Rule 8-A of KMMC Rules effective from 12.08.2016 and that the fourth respondent -Senior Geologist and competent authority had neither renewed the quarrying lease nor had passed order of deemed extension constraining the petitioner to approach this Court. It is the further case of the petitioner and during the pendency of the above application for renewal fifth respondent Deputy Commissioner as Chairman of the District Task Force Committee has issued and caused publication of the impugned notification without authority of law and contrary to the provisions of KMMC Rules. That the petitioner as a matter of abundant caution, in response to the impugned notification filed application dated 20.01.2020 seeking grant of quarrying lease over an area of 3.10 acres.
3.3 It is the further case of the petitioner that the sixth respondent-Nagappa though had made an application only in respect of land measuring 2 acres in 13 Sy.No.2 of Danavalli Village and had not made any application in respect of land in Sy.No.58 of DinneHosahalli, the District Task Force Committee headed by fifth respondent has granted lease in favour of sixth respondent in respect of Block I in Sy.No.58 measuring 3 acres 10 guntas of DinneHosahalli Village vide grant certificate dated 23.10.2020.
3.4 That the respondent authorities have not complied with the mandatory requirement of Rule 3-F of KMMC Rules while issuing and causing publication of the impugned notification. That the entire process for grant of quarrying lease in favour of sixth respondent is in violation of KMMC Rules and the same is arbitrary and illegal.
3.5 Statement of objections have been filed by the respondent authorities questioning the maintainability of the writ petition as the petitioner has not availed remedy under Rule 53 of KMMC Rules before invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
143.6 It is contended that a quarry lease was granted in favour of father of the petitioner over an area of 4.20 acres in Sy.No.58 of DinneHosahalli Village, Kolar District for a period of five years from 29.06.1996. Thereafter periodical renewal was granted for a period of every five years. The last such renewal was from 29.06.2006 and the said lease came to an end on 28.06.2011. The petitioner had filed an application seeking renewal of quarry lease on 25.03.2011 and the same is pending, as necessary no objection certificates as contemplated under Rule 8(5) was not received within time. KMMC Rules, 1994 was amended with effect from 12.08.2016 whereunder concept of granting renewal was replaced by deemed extension from its original lease period. That the petitioner is entitled for benefit of deemed extension as per Rule 8A(6) of the Rules upto 31.03.2020, since the application seeking renewal of quarrying lease is pending, petitioner cannot claim leasehold right over the area.
15
3.7 That as per the amended KMMC Rules, leases which were going to be expired on 31.03.2020 was notified after approval in the District Task Force Committee inviting applications in several Districts. The area sought for by the petitioner is suitable for extraction of building stone (size stone) and there are several persons who are traditional quarry operators whose livelihood depends on quarrying activity. The amended KMMC Rules provides for disposal of such areas under Rule 3-F by non auction method, that is by choosing persons from lottery if more than one application is received.
3.8 That the area/lease sought for by the petitioner falls in serial number one (1) of the impugned notification which is reserved for a person belonging to Schedule Caste or Registered Society of such persons. As 21 applications were received out of which 20 applications were found to be eligible as per Rule 3-F(6) application of M/s.DinneHosahalli Dr.B.R.Amedkar Parishista Jathi/Pangda Bande Quarry Coolie Karmikara Sangha was 16 chosen by way of lottery and was issued with Form -GL by notification dated 23.10.2020. That the allotment was in accordance with law. Hence, sought for dismissal of the petition.
4. W.P.No.1999/2020
4.1 Petitioner -D.N.Devaraj has filed the above petition seeking:
(a) issue of writ of certiorari to quash the impugned notification produced at Annexure-H.
(b) issue of writ of mandamus directing fourth respondent Senior Geologist to dispose of quarrying lease applications dated 27.10.2019 and 14.03.2014 filed by the petitioner seeking grant of quarry lease in respect of land bearing Sy.No.2 of Danavalli Village, Kolar Taluk and District to an extent of 0.10 acres, 0.20 acres and 0.20 acres in terms of the orders of this Court dated 15.12.2018 produced at Annexures -B, C, D and A respectively.
(c) issue writ of certiorari quashing grant of notification at Annexures-J and L dated 23.10.2020.
4.2 It is the case of the petitioner that he had made applications for grant of quarrying lease dated 27.10.2009, 27.10.2009 and 14.03.2014 in respect of 17 Government land bearing Sy.No.2 of Danavalli Village. Endorsement dated:18.11.2016 were issued declining grant of quarrying lease, which were Quashed in Writ petition Nos.53282/2018 & 55349-50/2018.
4.3 That by order dated 15.12.2018 passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.53282/2018 and 55349-50/2018 three endorsements dated 18.11.2016 were quashed directing the authorities to consider and decide the applications of the petitioner seeking execution of quarrying lease within four months. That without complying with the said order the respondent authorities issued the impugned notification proposing to distribute the area in DinneHosahalli and Danavalli including the quarrying lease applied area of the petitioner in favour of persons belonging to SC/ST community and persons with disability and economically weaker sections etc., in terms of Rule 3-F of KMMC Rules. That unless and until pending applications of the petitioners are disposed of as per law the respondent authority cannot proceed with granting of quarrying lease in terms of impugned notification. That 18 the fifth respondent Deputy Commissioner as Chairman of the District Task Force Committee has no authority or power to issue the impugned notification. That there is violation of Rules prescribing reservation as enumerated under Rule 3-F. That the entire process is arbitrary and without authority of law. That the issuance of publication of gazette notification is contrary to the provisions of Rule 3-F(2) of KMMC Rules. That the publication in the newspaper is not in compliance with the mandatory provisions of law. Hence, the writ petition.
4.4 Statement of objections have been filed by the respondent -State authorities questioning the maintainability of the writ petition. It is contended that three applications of the petitioner for grant of quarry lease of building stone which were pending as on 12.08.2016 when the amendment to KMMC Rules were effected, have become ineligible by operation of law. Accordingly, endorsements dated 18.11.2016 were issued. The said endorsements were challenged in W.P.No.53282/2018, W.P.Nos.55349-50/2018 which were 19 allowed by this Court vide order dated 15.12.2018 setting aside the said endorsements and directing the authorities to obtain necessary no objection certificates as contemplated under Rule 8(5) and to decide the application within four weeks. That by subsequent order dated 16.08.2019 passed in W.P.No.10601/2019 the constitutional validity of Rule 8(B) of KMMC Rules has been upheld further holding that the previous Judgments of this Court will not have binding effect for deciding the application under Rule 8(B).
4.5 The area applied for by the petitioner is suitable for extraction of building stone and to be allotted to economically weaker section as per Rule 3-F of the KMMC Rules. That the notification issued is in accordance with law. The application of the petitioner falls within serial number two(2) of the said notification reserved for physically challenged person. Out of 14 applications received in the said category 9 applications were found to be eligible. In terms of Rule 3-F(6) application of sixth respondent- Krishnappa was chosen by way of lottery and 20 has been granted quarrying lease. A notification in Form GL has been issued on 23.10.2020 executing a lease deed for a period of 20 years from 31.12.2021. Petitioner is therefore not entitled for the relief sought for. Hence, sought for dismissal of the petition.
4.6 Ratnamma wife of late Krishnappa- sixth respondent has filed statement of objections dated 20.04.2023 denying the petition averments. It is their case that the sixth respondent belonged to the physically handicapped and economically weaker person coming under SC/ST category. That he had applied for quarrying lease under physically handicap category and was selected under lottery on 01.09.2020 and was granted lease on 23.10.2020. Along with said application 30 documents had been produced.
5. W.P.No.14621/2022 -
5.1 In this writ petition petitioner -Chandrappa is before this Court seeking:
21
(a) issue of writ of certiorari to quash the impugned notification issued by third respondent-
Deputy Commissioner produced as Annexure-H; and,
(b) issue of writ of certiorari quashing notification at Annexure-D dated 23.10.2020 granting quarrying lease in favour of fifth respondent - Krishnappa (since deceased by his LRs).
5.2 It is the case of the petitioner that the issuance of impugned notification by third respondent Deputy Commissioner is without authority. That the petitioner had made an application seeking grant of quarrying lease in respect of Sy.No.2 of Danavalli. That the impugned notification has been issued without determining the extent of freely available area for grant considering pendency of quarrying lease application. That the publication of notification has not been done in the manner required under law. That the provisions with regard to reservation of areas as provided under the Rules had not been adhered to. That the third and fourth respondent namely the Deputy Commissioner as Chairman of District Task Force Committee and Senior Geologist have acted in unilateral and arbitrary manner without 22 having any power, authority or jurisdiction. That the grant of quarrying lease in favour of fifth respondent in terms of notification dated 23.10.2020 to an extent of 2 acres is in violation of mandate of reservation scheme applicable in respect of physically handicapped persons with disabilities category. That since there is no compliance with regard to provisions of Rule 3-F(2) of KMMC Rules in the matter of issuing publication of impugned notification, the entire process is exfacie bad in law and liable to be set aside.
5.3 Objection statements have been filed by the respondent-State authorities denying the petition averments. It is contended that the District Task Force Committee had approved blocks of 10 acres and below, identified by jurisdictional Senior Geologist in the meeting dated 24.10.2019. In furtherance to which impugned notification dated 07.11.2019 was issued notifying five blocks in Sy.No.58 of DinneHosahalli and four blocks in Sy.No.2 of Danavalli. Thus, totally 9 building stone quarry blocks were identified and notified. That the fourth respondent-Senior Geologist after approval by District 23 Task Force Committee, notified the same in the Kannada Daily newspaper namely, "Hosa Digantha" dated 22.12.2019 and "Kolar Prathinidhi" daily dated 22.12.2019 inviting applications for grant of quarrying lease. That the fourth respondent Senior Geologist being Member Secretary/Convenor of District Task Force Committee and competent authority for grant of quarrying lease has notified the identified blocks in two aforesaid local newspapers. That sub-rule (2) of Rule 3-F requires identified blocks to be approved by District Task Force Committee and same to be notified to general public. That the said Rule do not contemplate publication of identified blocks in the gazette. That since the impugned notification has been published in the Official Gazette and the information to participate in the proposed allotment of blocks has been published in the local newspapers, the objections raised by the petitioner questioning the process of notification and its publication is bad in law and untenable. That sub-rule (1) of Rule 31-A and sub-rule (2) of Rule 3-F of KMMC Rules shall be read harmoniously, 24 keeping in mind the object of the said rules. That the allocation of blocks has been done with the approval of District Task Force Committee strictly in terms of Rule 31- B of KMMC Rules (Amendment, 2016).
5.4 That petitioner had filed an application for grant of lease for building stone in respect of an area measuring 2 acres in Sy.No.2 of Danavalli Village, Kolar Taluk and District. That on 25.04.2010 letters were addressed to the Revenue and Forest Department seeking no objection certificate under Rule 8(5) of KMMC Rules, 1994 and no objection certificates were not received. That KMMC Rules was amended with effect from 12.08.2016 whereunder as per Rule 8(B)(1) all applications pending as on 12.08.2016 would become ineligible by operation of law. That the petitioner had approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.879/2017 which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 21.04.2017 directing the respondent authorities to dispose of the application within three months and in compliance with the said directions an order has been passed on 15.05.2017 rejecting the said 25 application. That by order dated 16.08.2019 passed in W.P.No.10609/2019 this Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 8 (B) of KMMC Rules, 1994 and has further held that the previous judgments of this Court will not have binding effect as precedent while deciding the application under Rule 8(B) of KMMC Rules 1994.
5.5 Amended KMMC Rules provides for disposal of areas under Rule 3(F) of KMMC Rules 1994 by non auction method (choosing person from lottery if more than one application is received). That the technical officers of the Department of Mines and Geology have identified 9 blocks in two villages and have obtained no objection certificate from Forest and Revenue Department. The District Task Force Committee on consideration of the matter in terms of the Rules proceeded to allot 2 acres of area in favour of fifth respondent which was reserved for physically challenged persons. That there is complete compliance with the Rules and allotment is made in accordance with law. Hence, sought for dismissal of the petition. 26 6. W.P.No.1656/2022
6.1. Petitioner - Krishnappa has filed the above writ petition seeking:
(a) issue of writ of certiorari quashing the impugned notification issued by second respondent - District Task Force Committee insofar as it relates to notifying 3.10 acres of land in Sy.No.58 of block No.1 in Dinne Hosahalli Village, Kolar as per Annexure-A.
(b) issue of writ of certiorari quashing resolution of second respondent - District Task Force Committee dated 01.09.2020 insofar as it relates to allotment/grant of quarry lease to the fourth respondent in respect of 3.10 acres of land in Sy.No.58 of block No.1 in DinneHosahalli Village, Kolar as per Annexure-B.
(c) issue of writ of certiorari quashing grant of licence in terms of notification No.1/2020-21 dated 23.10.2020 by third respondent made in No.GABHUE/HIBHU (Kolar/KAGUGU/GL/2020-
21) as per Annexure-C.
(d) issue of writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to re-notify the land measuring 3.10 acres in Block No.1 in Sy.No.58 of Dinne Hosahalli for allotment/grant under Rule 3-F of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules.
6.2 It is the case of the petitioner that he had applied for allotment in Block No.1 of DinneHosahalli and in the said block 60 members had applied and after 27 scrutiny 50 members were declared to be eligible. That the fourth respondent -Nagappa had applied in Block No.3 of Danavalli Village and had not applied in any of the five blocks in DinneHosahalli Village. That the petitioner is a member of Schedule Caste Community. That his mother - Smt.Muniyamma was previously granted a lease in a portion of Sy.No.58 of DinneHosahalli Village during 1993 for a period of five years. That 1.20 acres granted to her was part of this allotted land subject matter of the instant proceedings.
6.3 That in terms of Rule 3-F(2) a notification is required to be issued by jurisdictional Deputy Director whereas the same has been issued in the instant proceedings by the Deputy Commissioner being head of the District Task Force Committee in contravention to the Rules. That the District Task Force Committee has no role to play except being approval authority for the identified blocks for reservation under Rule 3-F(2). That the Rules clearly indicate that the notification and grant/allotment shall be made only by the jurisdictional Deputy Director or 28 Senior Geologists being competent authority for grant of leases in specified or non specified minor minerals.
6.4. That the petitioner learnt about the illegalities committed by the respondent authorities only on obtaining the information under the Right to Information Act and since the petitioner is the eligible candidate satisfying all requirements under relevant rules, he filed the petition belatedly.
6.5. That the fourth respondent is not eligible for allotment/grant of lease in respect of Block No.1 of DinneHosahalli village, as he had not applied for allotment in the said block. That the material on record clearly disclose that in DinneHosahalli there are five blocks and this petition is concerned with block No.1 measuring about 3.10 acres in Sy.No.58. That there were 60 applicants including the petitioner and out of them 50 were declared eligible for participation. That the fourth respondent was the aspirant in respect of block No.3 of Danavalli. As per the rules allotment was to be made based on blockwise 29 applications and preference. Block No.1 of DinneHosahalli village was reserved to the members of scheduled caste and registered societies whereas block No.3 in Danavalli village was reserved for persons with disability. The fourth respondent having found not eligible in Danavalli village, the authorities have manipulated the process to allot block No.1 of DinneHosahalli Village to the fourth respondent. As such allotment was contrary to rules, notification and operational guidelines. That the eligible applicants including petitioner were neither notified nor called for to be present during the lottery process. That the allotment of block No.1 to fourth respondent is vitiated.
6.6. That the impugned notification dated 07.11.2019 was issued by an incompetent authority. That once the blocks are reserved as per Rule 3-F(4) it is for the jurisdictional Deputy Director or Senior Geologist to issue notification for allotment/grant after identifying various blocks in exercise of power under Rule 3-F(2) with prior approval of the District Task Force Committee. 30 Therefore, the Task Force Committee cannot venture into issuance of notification by power vested with the sub- ordinate authority. As such, issuance of notification is without authority.
6.7. That once the grant notification is issued under Rule 16, the licensee/lessee shall get the lease executed in Form E within six months of such grant as stipulated under Rule 18. That in the instant case grant was made on 23.10.2020 but the lease deed has not been executed within the stipulated period. As such, there is deemed revocation of grant by operation of law under Rule 18 of KMMC Rules. Hence, the writ petition.
6.8. Statement of objections have been filed by respondent -State authorities denying the petition averments. It is contended that the allegation of the petitioner that the fourth respondent has not applied for allotment/grant in block No.1 of DinneHosahalli village and that he had applied only in Block No.3 of Danavalli village is incorrect and misleading. It is specifically 31 contended that the fourth respondent had applied for allotment/grant of quarry lease in block No.3 of Danavalli village as well as block No.1 of DinneHosahalli village as per the applications produced at Annexure-R-1 and R-2. In the list of names of the applicants in respect of block No.1 of DinneHosahalli as per Annexure-R-3 name of respondent No.4 is found at Sl.No.6 and name of petitioner is found at Sl.No.8. In the proceedings of Sub- Committee dated 10.02.2020 applications submitted by applicants for various blocks notified in the notification have been scrutinzed and in the said proceedings in respect of block No.1 of DinneHosahalli, out of 60 applicants, applicants at Sl.No.4, 6 to 17, 20-26, 28, 29, 31 to 43, 45-48, 50-59 found to be eligible applicants under Rule 3-F of KMMC Rules, 1994. Whereas applicants in Sl.No.3, 5, 18, 19, 27, 30, 44, 49 and 60 are held to be ineligible for not having submitted required documents. That the petitioner being aware of the aforesaid aspects of the matter and the proceedings of the sub-committee 32 produced at Annexure-R-4 has suppressed the same before this Court.
6.9. That in the proceedings of the District Task Force Committee held on 01.09.2020 fourth respondent has been selected by way of lottery as provided under sub-rule (4) of Rule 3-F of KMMC Rules, 1994 and grant of formal notification dated 23.10.2020 and execution of lease in favour of fourth respondent on 27.01.2022 for a period of 20 years has been effected. That there is no illegality in the process as alleged by the petitioner, hence, sought for dismissal of the petition.
6.10. Statement of objections has been filed on behalf of fourth respondent -Nagappa contending that he had applied on 20.01.2020 for grant of licence to quarry in Sy.No.58, block No.1 measuring 3.10 acres of DinneHosahalli Village by obtaining a challan bearing No.CR-120085300361374 dated 18.01.2020. That on scrutiny of his application he was held eligible for grant of licence and that his name was selected in the lottery in 33 terms of the prescribed procedure as evident from the proceedings recorded on 01.09.2020 under the Chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner of Kolar District. The fourth respondent was issued with Form GL dated 23.10.2020 and a letter of communication dated 12.02.2021. That a lease deed has been executed on 27.01.2022. That the grant of lease is thus in accordance with law.
6.11. That the writ petition is filed only to harass the fourth respondent. Hence, sought for dismissal of the petition.
7. Submission of Learned Counsel for the Petitioners & Respondent 7.1. Sri.Vikram Huilgol, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.1999/2020 and W.P.No.14621/2022 reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of writ petition submits that originally petitioner in W.P.No.1999/2020 had made applications on 27.10.2009 and 14.03.2014 for grant of quarrying lease in 34 respect of land in Sy.No.2 of Danavalli village for an area of 0.10 acres, 0.20 acres and 0.20 acres and on rejection of the said applications on 18.11.2016 petitioner had approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.53282/2018 and W.P.Nos.55349-50/2018. The said writ petitions were allowed directing the official respondents to obtain no objection certificate from Forest and Revenue Departments in terms of Rule 8(5) and to dispose of the said applications. That until and unless said applications were disposed of under erstwhile Rule 22 which was in force till 12.08.2016, the respondent authority cannot proceed to grant lease in terms of the impugned notification.
7.2. He further submits that impugned notification dated 07.11.2019 is contrary to provisions of Rule 3-F of KMMC Rules. In that referring to sub-rule (2) of Rule 3-F learned Senior counsel emphatically submits impugned notification has been issued by a person without authority. That as per the rules it is the Deputy Director or Senior Geologist who is authorised to issue such 35 notification and not the Deputy Commissioner as done in the instant case. Learned Senior counsel drawing attention of this Court to sub-rule (4) of Rule 3-F submits the reservation as provided thereunder has not been adhered to. Thus, he submits that the entire process is vitiated warranting interference by this Court.
8. Sri.Tharanath Poojary, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.1656/2022 reiterating the averments and grounds urged in the writ petition submitted that the primary challenge in the petition is grant of quarrying lease in favour of respondent No.4 - Nagappa who has been granted lease in respect of area measuring 3.10 acres in Block No.1, in Sy.No.58 of DinneHosahalli even though he had not applied for allotment/grant of lease in respect thereof. He submits that fourth respondent had applied for grant of quarry lease in block No.3 of Danavalli village. Drawing attention of this Court to documents produced at Annexure-D from page Nos.42 to 45 learned Senior counsel points out that fourth respondent-Nagappa had applied only in respect of 36 block No.3 of Danavalli in respect of which out of total 14 applications received only 9 were held to be eligible, in that name of fourth respondent is reflected at Serial No.2. As regards Block No.1 of Sy.No.58 of DinneHosahalli out of 60 applications only 50 were held to be eligible. In that name of the petitioner-R.Krishnappa is reflected at Serial No.4 and name of fourth respondent-Nagappa is not reflected. Learned Senior counsel drawing attention of this Court to document at Annexure-R-3 produced by the respondent-State authorities along with statement of objections pertaining to DinneHosahalli village submits that name of fourth respondent is reflected at Serial No.6 and name of the petitioner is reflected at Serial No.8. Further drawing attention of this Court to Serial No.38 which is repeated twice, learned Senior counsel submits that document at Annexure-R-3 is manipulated by State authorities to accommodate fourth respondent whose name was not found at Annexure-D to the writ petition at Page Nos.44 and 45 as he had not made any application. He submits that the fourth respondent had obtained only 37 one application as could be seen at Serial No.371 in Register maintained by the Department containing details of issuance of applications. Thus, he submits that the entire process is arbitrary and vitiated with illegalities requiring to be set aside. Learned Senior counsel also submits that the issuance of notification was not in accordance with the rules.
9. Smt.Vidyulatha learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.1994/2020 reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition made submissions similar to that of the submissions made by Sri.Tharanath Poojary, Learned Senior Counsel as regards sixth respondent-Nagappa having been granted lease in respect of block No.1 of DinneHosahalli village even though he had not made any application in respect of the said block. Learned counsel drawing attention of this Court to the documents purportedly obtained under Right to Information Act submits that sixth respondent-Nagappa was found eligible in respect of block No.3 of Danavalli and that his name was not found in the list of 50 eligible 38 applicants in respect of block No.1 of DinneHosahalli village.
10. Adverting to the issue of non consideration of application for renewal of lease learned counsel submits that in view of newly inserted Rule 8A of KMMC Rules, there is a deemed extension of lease in favour of the petitioner, as such the respondent authority could not have allotted the applied area in terms of the impugned notification.
11. As regards issuance of impugned notification learned counsel emphatically submitted that the same is issued by Deputy Commissioner who is not authorised under Rule 3-F. She insisted that it is a settled law that if a statute require a thing to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in the same manner and not otherwise. Referring to definition of the term `notification' under Clause 24(b) of Karnataka General Clauses Act, learned counsel submitted that the publication in the newspaper is not a notification, as such there is no 39 compliance with the Rules. Hence, submits that petition be allowed.
12. Sri.S.S.Mahendra, learned Additional Government Advocate at the outset submitted that the petitioners have not approached the Court with clean hands. He submitted that the petitioners have suppressed the material facts and have mislead the Court. He submitted that there is no denial by the petitioners regarding issuance of notification. As regards publication of the same is concerned, he submitted that the same was effected in two locally circulated newspapers namely "Hosa Digantha"
and "Kolar Prathinidhi" providing all the details required under law. That in response to the said paper publication applications were received. Even the petitioners have also filed applications in response to the said publication. That the petitioners have participated in the process of selection and since they were unsuccessful the other private respondents were selected by way of lottery, the petitioners have approached this Court. He submits that once the petitioners having participated in the process of 40 selection cannot cry foul of the procedure as principle of promissory estoppel would be applicable estopping the petitioner to contend contrary. He submitted that non-
compliance of Rule 3-F is not the grievance of the petitioners. He relied upon Judgment of this Court in W.A.No.100260-261/2017 in the case of Marinica Vs State of Karnataka wherein at paragraph 8 this Court has dealt with principle of estoppel. He relied upon Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sidhartha Sarawgi Vs Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata and others (2014) 16 SCC 248 and has relied on paragraph 7 of the said Judgment. He further submitted that issuance of notification is an administrative action and the purpose is to convey the decision of the Committee to be made known to the public at large and the said purpose has been achieved in the instant case.
13. As regards the contention of petitioners in W.P.No.1656/2022 and W.P.No.1994/2020 to the effect that Nagappa the private respondent therein having been granted quarry lease in respect of DinneHosahalli village 41 though he had made application only in respect of Danavalli village, learned Additional Government Advocate emphatically submitted that said Nagappa made application in respect of both the villages and has been found eligible in respect of DinneHosahalli village under the Persons With Disability category. He submitted that petitioner in W.P.1656/2022 has relied upon the documents purportedly obtained by some third party under Right to Information Act and said documents do not appear to be correct and genuine one. He submitted that document produced at Annexure-R-3 reflecting names of 60 applicants is a statement prepared after scrutiny of eligible applicants, in that name of Nagappa is found. Repetition of serial No.38 is an inadvertent error in view of similarity of names of the applicants and that by itself cannot vitiate the entire process. Thus, he submits that there has been a complete compliance with the provisions of Rules.
14. As regards the relief sought by petitioner in W.P.No.1994/2020 for consideration of application for 42 renewal of lease learned Additional Government Advocate referring to documents produced along with memo dated 22.07.2021 submitted that initially lease was granted in favour of father of the petitioner on 29.06.1996. The second renewal was made on 29.06.2001. The third renewal was on 29.06.2006 and fourth one was on 25.03.2011. Thus, referring to these documents learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the contention of the petitioner that he was granted lease only on 29.06.2006 is mischievous and made with malafide intentions. As such, the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.1994/2020 do not fall within the provisions of Rule 8A of KMMC Rules.
15. Referring to Rule 31B(2) learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the reservation of areas has been made as provided thereunder. He submitted that sub-rule (4) of Rule 3-F has to be read in conjunction with Rule 31B which provides for method of reservation.
43
16. Hence, he submits that the petitioners have not made out grounds for interference and seeks for rejection of the petitions.
17. In response to the submissions of learned Additional Government Advocate, Sri.Vikram Huilgol, learned Senior Counsel in W.P.No.1999/2020 and W.P.No.14621/2022 submitted that impugned notification is ultra vires the Rule 3-F and that submission of learned Additional Government Advocate is a smoke screen to cover up the illegality. He submitted that principle of estoppel is not applicable to the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.1999/2020 as petitioner approached even before rejection of his application for grant. He further submitted that if a notification is ultra vires the rule same cannot be validated merely for participation by the petitioners.
18. Sri.Tharanath Poojary, learned Senior counsel in reply to the submissions of learned Additional 44 Government Advocate relied upon Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Asha Vs Pt.B.D.Sharma University of Health Sciences & Ors reported in (2012) 7 SCC 389 paragraph 17 and submitted that since there is no specific denial of the averments made in the petition regarding Nagappa not making application in respect of block No.1 of DinneHosahalli village, the respondent - State authorities cannot at the stage of argument seek to improve upon their case. He submitted that since there is no denial of the averments in this regard the same deems to have been admitted. He again brought to attention of this Court the rejoinder filed by the petitioner and document at Annexure-G being a ledger wherein at Serial No.371 only one application is shown to have been issued in favour of Nagappa. He submitted that even if the notification is held to be in accordance with Rule 3-F, in terms of Rule 18 lease deed should be executed within six months. In the instant case grant was made on 31.10.2020 and the lease is executed on 27.01.2022 during the pendency of the writ petition and beyond the 45 period prescribed under Rule 8. Relying upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dr.(Major) Meeta Sahai Vs State of Bihar and others reported in AIR online 2019 SC 1766 (para 18) and case of Subhash RamKumar Bind @ Vakil and anr Vs State of Maharashtra reported in (2003) 1 SCC 506 (para 20) learned Senior counsel submitted that principle of estoppel is not applicable in the instant case as there is no adherence to the due process of law.
19. Smt.Vidyulatha, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.1994/2020 submitted that first lease was granted in favour of father of the petitioner in Form No.E and the application under Form No.GL is for renewal and the said application is still not considered. She reiterated that there is deviation from the provisions of rules providing for issuance of notification going to the root of the matter and on the said ground alone petition requires to be allowed.
46Analysis :
20. In view of contentious issues regarding obtaining the documents under Right to Information Act by the petitioners in W.P.No.1656/2022 and W.P.No.1994/2020 this Court by order dated 19.04.2023 had directed learned counsel for the parties therein to furnish necessary details to learned Additional Government Advocate in respect of the documents obtained under Right to Information Act and learned Additional Government Advocate was directed to provide necessary certified copies of corresponding material namely application filed either at the instance of one Mr.Devaraj or at the instance of Mr.Chennarayappa and the information/documents furnished by the respondent authorities pursuant to the said application. In furtherance thereof memo dated 20.04.2023 has been filed by learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.1994/2020 along with documents consisting of 56 pages.
47
21. Learned Additional Government Advocate has filed a memo dated 24.04.2023 along with Annexures -R- 1 to R-4 consisting of 748 pages.
22. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the records. Following points arise for our consideration in the aforesaid writ petitions:
(i) Whether petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions have made out a ground to quash the notification dated 07.11.2019 and consequently quash notification dated 23.10.2020 granting quarrying lease?
(ii) Whether the petitioner in W.P.No.1994/2020 is entitled for issue of writ of mandamus directing respondents to consider the application for renewal?
(iii) Whether the petitioner in W.P.No.1999/2020 is entitled for issue of writ of mandamus directing respondents to consider the application for grant of quarry lease?
REGARDING VALIDITY OF NOTIFICATION ISSUED UNDER RULE 3-F:
23. Before adverting to rival contentions it is necessary and appropriate to refer to relevant rules of 48 KMMC Rules, 1994. Rule 3-F providing for exemption of certain Rules in case of ordinary building stone, which is subject matter of these writ petitions is extracted hereunder:
3-F. Exemption of certain rules in case of ordinary building stone.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contrary contained in Chapter IV-A, quarry leases of extent five acres and below in case of individuals and 10 acres and below in case of Registered Societies having all the members belonging to the Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribes or having all members who are traditional quarry operators and whose livelihood is dependent on quarrying for ordinary building stone in the lands belonging to the State Government, shall be allotted following procedure prescribed under this rule.
(2) Blocks of ten acres and below identified by the jurisdictional Deputy Director or Senior Geologist shall be notified by him, after approval in the District Task Force Committee, in any two newspapers having wide circulation, of which at least one shall be in Kannada, inviting applications for grant of quarry lease specifying the area available for grant of quarrying lease, reservation of the block and its location with boundaries:
Provided that such notification shall be published atleast thirty days prior to the last date for receiving such applications.
(3) The extent of areas so identified in blocks of extent ten acres and below for allotment under rule 3F shall not exceed the percentage prescribed in Rule 31-B:
Provided that the State Government may issue operational guidelines for identification of 49 such blocks, along with other blocks, and the identification by the jurisdictional Deputy Director or Senior Geologist shall be done as per guidelines notified by the Government from time to time.
(4) Blocks so identified for the purpose of this rule shall be reserved, by way of lottery, for allotment to the residents of the District for quarrying by them, in the following percentages, namely:-
(i) Persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or registered society of such persons - 24%;
(ii) Persons belonging to economically weaker section who is a quarry operator by tradition and whose livelihood is depending on quarrying of ordinary building stone or registered society of such persons - 24%
(iii) Persons with disabilities (physically challenged)- 2%; and
(iv) Others -50%: Provided that the Tahsildar of the concerned Taluk in which the persons reside or where the Registered Society of such persons is located shall be competent to certify with regard to eligibility of persons or Registered Society of such persons for the purpose of sub-rule (4).
(5) The blocks so identified under clause (i) and (ii) of sub rule (4) shall be allotted with the following preference, namely.-
(i) to registered societies having all the members belonging to the Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribes or having all members who are traditional quarry operators and whose livelihood is dependent on quarrying of ordinary building stone; and 50
(ii) to individuals belonging to the Schedule Castes or Schedule Tribes or to category of persons who are traditional quarry operators and whose livelihood is dependent entirely on quarry of ordinary building stone.
(6) Without prejudice to sub-rule (5) above, quarrying lease shall be granted under this rule to eligible applicant by way of lottery, if more than one application is received amongst the categories specified in sub-rule (4) above.
(7) No person or registered society shall be eligible for making application for quarrying lease to be granted under this rule, if he or a member of his family or if the concerned registered society, as the case may be, already holds another quarrying lease in the District or anywhere else in the State of Karnataka.
(8) All applications of the applicants other than the applicant who is selected for grant of quarrying lease shall be deemed to have been rejected and application fee in respect of such applications shall be forfeited.
(9) The successful applicant in the "others"
category in this rule shall pay in addition to Royalty, an amount which shall be equal to the Average Additional Periodic Payment payable by the holders of quarry lease or license granted through auction within the Taluk if such average is available for Taluk, or within the District if such average is not available for the Taluk, or within the neighboring Districts if such average is not available for the District, and if such average is not available within the neighboring Districts, such 51 Average Additional Periodic Payment shall be deemed to be 50 per cent of Royalty. This deemed percentage shall be reset after three years based on average obtained in auctions by 31-3-2019; and if no auctions have taken place by 31-3-2019 for deriving the average from Taluk, District or neighbouring districts, as the case may be, then the deemed rate will become the final rate for the Average Additional Periodic Payment:
Provided that when such Royalty and fifty percent of Average Additional Periodic payment is paid, then the payment by the lessee or holder of license to the District Mineral Foundation shall be as payable by the holders of lease or license through auction".
24. A perusal of above rule reveal that Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 3-F provides for allotment of quarrying lease, its extent in favour of persons enumerated therein. Sub- Rule(2) provides for notification of blocks identified by the jurisdictional Deputy Director or Senior Geologist after approval by the District Task Force Committee in two newspapers having wide circulation of which one shall be in Kannada inviting applications for grant of quarrying 52 lease specifying the area available for grant of quarrying lease, reservation of block and its location with boundaries at least thirty days prior to last date for receiving such applications.
25. In the instant case impugned notification dated 07.11.2019 issued under Rule 3-F of KMMC Rules, 1994 has been published in the Official Gazette by the Deputy Commissioner and the Chairman of District Task Force Committee, Kolar District, Kolar. The said notification admittedly has not been published in the newspapers having wide circulation. The contention of learned Additional Government Advocate is that notice calling for applications seeking allotment of lease in respect of identified blocks has been published in two local newspapers namely "Hosa Digantha" and "Kolar Prathinidi". The contents of the said publication in the newspaper reads as under:
53
"PÀlÖqÀ PÀ®Äè ¨ÁèPïUÀ¼À ºÀgÁdÄ gÀ»vÀ «¯ÉêÁj PÉÆïÁgÀ : PÉÆïÁgÀ f¯ÉèAiÀÄ ¢£ÉßúÉƸÀºÀ½î UÁæªÄÀ zÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.58 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÁ£ÀªÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.2 gÀ°è vÀ¯Á 5 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 4 PÀlÖqÀ PÀ®Äè ¨ÁèPïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀjUÉ ºÀgÁdÄ gÀ»vÀªÁV «¯ÉêÁj ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ. D¸ÀPÀÛ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀÄ CfðUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß f¯ÁèqÀ½vÀ ¨sÀªÀ£ÀzÀ, UÀt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨sÀÆ«eÁÕ£À E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ »jAiÀÄ ¨sÆ À «eÁÕ¤AiÀĪÀgÀ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è r¸ÉA§gï 23 jAzÀ CfðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÄÀ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼Æ É A¢UÉ 30 ¢£ÀUÀ¼ÉƼÀUÁV ¸À°è¸À§ºÀÄzÁVzÉ. ºÉaÑ£À ªÀiÁ»wUÁV UÀt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨sÆ À «eÁÕ£À E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ »jAiÀÄ ¨sÀÆ «eÁÕ¤UÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß ¸ÀA¥ÀQð¸À§ºÀÄzÀÄ".
(English Translation Allotment of building stone blocks without auction):
Kolar: Five and Four Ordinary Building stone blocks each in Sy.No.58 of Dinnehosahalli village and Sy.No.2 of Danavalli village of Kolar District would be allotted without auction. Interested general public may obtain applications from the office of Senior Geologist, District Administrative Building, Department of Mines and Geology and submit the same along with necessary documents within 30 days. For further information may contact, Senior Geologist, Department of Mines and Geology).
26. Thus from the aforesaid material made available on record it is clear that notification in the Official Gazette has been issued by the Deputy Commissioner and Chairman of District Task Force Committee and not by Deputy Director or Senior Geologist as required under Sub-Rule(2) of Rule 3-F. Further the 54 said notification has not been published in the two newspapers but a notice in the nature of news item calling for applications from the general public for allotment of quarrying lease has been published in two local newspapers.
27. The contention of the petitioners is that the issuance of the impugned notification is by a person without authority, i.e., the said notification ought to have been issued by jurisdictional Deputy Director or Senior Geologist. It is also the contention of the petitioners that since Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 3-F mandates issuance of notification as noted above, non-compliance of the said rule would render the entire process void ab initio for want of authority under law.
28. Learned Additional Government Advocate in response submitted that the impugned notification has been issued by none other than the Deputy Commissioner and Chairman who is higher in authority compared to 55 jurisdictional Deputy Director and Senior Geologist. The provision contemplates the said jurisdictional Deputy Director and Senior Geologist to notify the blocks identified by them after approval in the District Task Force Committee. Since the District Task Force Committee is headed by the Deputy Commissioner who is also its Chairman, issuance of notification by the Chairman himself would not violate the requirement of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 3-F. Learned Additional Government Advocate refers to the Judgment of Apex Court in the case SIDHARTHA SARAWGI VS BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE PORT OF KOLKATA AND OTHERS (2014) 16 SCC 248 wherein at paragraph 7 the Apex Court has held that;
"Practical necessities or exigencies of administration require that the decision making authority who has been conferred with statutory power, be able to delegate tasks when the situation so requires. Thus, the maxim delegatus non potest delegare, gives way in the performance or administrative or ministerial tasks by sub-ordinate authorities in furtherance of the exercise of delegated power by an authority."56
At para 9 the Apex Court has further held that;
"The Constitution confers power and imposes duty on the legislature to make laws and the said functions cannot be delegated by the legislature to the executive. The legislature is constitutionally required to keep in its own hands the essential legislative functions which consist of the determination of legislative policy and its formulation as binding rule of conduct. After the performance of the essential legislative function by the legislature and laying the guiding policy, the legislature may delegate to the executive or administrative authority, any ancillary or sub- ordinate powers that are necessary for giving effect to the policy and purposes of the enactment........."
29. Thus, relying upon the aforesaid Judgment learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the Deputy Commissioner who is also Chairman of District Task Force Committee had every authority to issue notification as it was merely an administrative act and no infirmity in the said process can be found moreso when the Deputy Director and Senior Geologist are sub-ordinate to the Deputy Commissioner.
57
30. Learned Additional Government Advocate further submitted that since petitioners along with other applicants filed application in response to the paper publication inviting applications for grant of lease in respect of the identified blocks, it was not open for the petitioners to assail the validity or otherwise of the process of issuance of notification. He submitted that in the situation of this nature principle of estoppel would operate. He relied upon the Judgment dated 02.02.2018 of co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in W.A.No.100260-261/2017(S-RES) wherein at paragraph 18 this Court has held as under:
18. As regards appellant No.2, in order to appreciate the challenge made, it is beneficial to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar & Another (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that the appellant having participated in the fresh round of selection could not be permitted to assail the process, once they were declared unsuccessful, if the candidates were aggrieved by the decision to hold a fresh process, they did not espouse their remedy. Instead, they participated in the fresh process of selection and it was only upon being 58 unsuccessful that they challenged the result in the writ petition, which was clearly not open to the appellants. The principle of estoppel would operate. This view is expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court considering the law crystallized in several decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court".
31. Thus learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that in view of the laid down by the Apex Court in the case of SIDHARTHA SARAWGI (supra) and in the aforesaid writ appeal by this Court, nothing survives for consideration with regard to the validity or otherwise of the notification.
32. Per contra, Sri.Tharanath Poojary, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner refers to the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of DR.(MAJOR) MEETA SAHAI VS STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS reported in AIR Online 2019 SC 1766 wherein at paragraph 18 the Apex Court has held as under:
18. However, we must differentiate from this principle insofar as the candidate by agreeing to participate in the selection process only accepts the prescribed procedure and not the illegality in it.
In a situation where a candidate alleges misconstruction of statutory rules and 59 discriminating consequences arising therefrom, the same cannot be condoned merely because a candidate has partaken in it. The constitutional scheme is sacrosanct and its violation in any manner is impermissible. In fact, a candidate may not have locus to assail the incurable illegality or derogation of the provisions of the Constitution, unless he/she participates in the selection process.
33. Learned counsel furthers refers to decision in the case of Subhash RamKumar Bind @ Vakil and anr Vs State of Maharashtra reported in (2003) 1 SCC 506 wherein at paragraph 20 the Apex Court dealing with the issue of notification has held as under:
"The submission of the State,.............. Notification in common English acceptation mean and imply a formal announcement of a legally relevant fact and in the event of a Statute speaking of a Notification being published in the Official Gazette, the same cannot but mean a Notification published by the authority of law in the Official Gazette. It is on formal declaration and publication of an order and shall have to be in accordance with the declared policies or in the event the requirement of the Statute then in that event in accordance therewith".
34. Learned counsel for the petitioners emphatically submitted that it is settled principle of law that if law mandates 60 an act to be done in a particular manner the same has to be done in that manner alone and not otherwise". There cannot be any dispute on the said principle of law. There can also be no dispute that the authority named under the statute alone has to perform the task assigned and not even his superior.
In the instant case what needs to be seen is that Rule 3F of the Rules carves out an exception with regard to grant of quarry lease of ordinary building stones. The Rule mandates that identification of the blocks as provided thereunder has to be approved by the District Task Force Committee, Chairman of which is Deputy Commissioner. It is not in dispute that the blocks were identified as contemplated under the Rules for allotment of quarry lease and the respondent authorities had obtained approval from the District Task Force Committee for the same. All that objected by the petitioners is the issuance of notification in the name of Deputy Commissioner and not publishing the same in two newspapers having wide circulation which as per Rule 3F (2) ought to have been notified and published by either jurisdictional Deputy Director or Senior Geologist. The 61 question therefore is whether issuance of notification by the Deputy Commissioner in his name instead of in the name of jurisdictional Deputy Director or Senior Geologist would vitiate the entire process requiring reinitiating the same afresh needs to be addressed taking into consideration the overall fact situation of the matter.
35. As already noted identification of blocks for allotment of quarrying lease has been done and the District Task Force Committee has approved the said identification of the blocks to be allotted in terms of Rule 3-F which is an essential function mandated under the Rule. Publication of this decision by a notification is consequential and ancillary act to the said essential function. Even if there is no strict adherence to the Rules in the matter of publication notification, that itself in our considered opinion, would not take away the legality or otherwise of the essential function and its process which had gone into before issuing the notification, since, the 62 publication of notification is consequential administrative action.
36. It may be appropriate to refer to doctrine of substantial compliance. The Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi Vs Hari Chand Shri Gopal and others reported in (2011) 1 SCC 236 at paragraphs 32, 33 and 34 dealing with the doctrine of substantial compliance has held as under:
"32. The doctrine of substantial compliance is a judicial invention, equitable in nature, designed to avoid hardship in cases where a party does all that can reasonably expected of it, but failed or faulted in some minor or inconsequent aspects which cannot be described as the "essence" or the "substance" of the requirements. Like the concept of "reasonableness", the acceptance or otherwise of a plea of "substantial compliance" depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and the purpose and object to be achieved and the context of the prerequisites which are essential to achieve the object and purpose of the rule or the regulation. Such a defence cannot be pleaded if a clear statutory prerequisite which effectuates the object and the purpose of the statute has not been met. Certainly, it means that the Court should determine whether the statute has been followed sufficiently so as to carry out the intent for which the statute was enacted and not a mirror image type of strict compliance. Substantial compliance means "actual compliance in respect to the substance essential to every reasonable objective of the statute" and the court should determine whether the statute has been followed sufficiently so as to carry out the intent of the statute and accomplish the reasonable objectives for which it was passed.63
33. Fiscal statute generally seeks to preserve the need to comply strictly with regulatory requirements that are important, especially when a party seeks the benefits of an exemption clause that are important. Substantial compliance of an enactment is insisted, where mandatory and directory requirements are lumped together, for in such a case, if mandatory requirements are complied with, it will be proper to say that the enactment has been substantially complied with notwithstanding the non- compliance of directory requirements. In cases where substantial compliance has been found, there has been actual compliance with the statute, albeit procedurally faulty. The doctrine of substantial compliance seeks to preserve the need to comply strictly with the conditions or requirements that are important to invoke a tax or duty exemption and to forgive non-compliance for either unimportant and tangential requirements or requirements that are so confusingly or incorrectly written that an earnest effort at compliance should be accepted.
34. The test for determining the applicability of the substantial compliance doctrine has been the subject of a myriad of cases and quite often, the critical question to be examined is whether the requirements relate to the "substance" or "essence" of the statute, if so, strict adherence to those requirements is a precondition to give effect to that doctrine. On the other hand, if the requirements are procedural or directory in that they are not of the "essence" of the thing to be done but are given with a view to the orderly conduct of business, they may be fulfilled by substantial, if not strict compliance. In other words, a mere attempted compliance may not be sufficient, but actual compliance of those factors which are considered as essential."
37. It may also be necessary to note that in the case of Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association Vs Union of India and others reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 309 the Hon'ble Apex Court dealing with a contention regarding invalidity of 64 notification, because it was not expressed in the name of the President of India as required under Article 77 of the Constitution of India at paragraphs 101, 102, 104, 105, 106 and 107 has held as under:
101. Similar principles govern the interpretation of Article 166 and Article 77, A notification which is not in compliance with clause (1) of Article 77 is not invalid, unconstitutional or non-est for that reason alone. Rather, the irrebuttable presumption that the notification was issued by the President of India (acting for the Union Government) is no longer available to the Union Government. The notification continues to be valid and it is open to the Union Government to prove that the order was indeed issued by the appropriate authority.
102. In the present case, the notification dated 2 August 2019 was not issued in the name of the President. However, this does not render the notification invalid. The effect of not complying with Article 77 is that the Union Government cannot claim the benefit of the irrebuttable presumption that the notification dated 2 August 2019 was issued by the President. Hence, the appellants' argument that the notification dated 2 August 2019 is invalid and unconstitutional is specious.
103. Here, it is appropriate to note that the notification dated 4 July 1986 (by which the OAT was established) was also not issued in the name of the President. However, the appellants seek to preserve the establishment of the OAT by that notification while assailing the notification abolishing the OAT. If the arguments of the appellants were to be accepted, the notification dated 4 July 1986 would be invalid. We are therefore not 65 inclined to entertain the argument that the notification dated 2 August 2019 is invalid and non-est.
104. We are satisfied that both the notification dated 4 July 1986 and the notification dated 2 August 2019 were, in substance, issued by the President (acting for the Union Government). The notifications were published in the Gazette of India in accordance with law and there is nothing on record to support the suggestion that an authority which is not empowered to issue the notification has issued it. To the contrary, section 4 of the Administrative Tribunal Act empowers the Union Government to issue a notification establishing the OAT and as discussed previously, the attendant power to rescind a notification so issued is also available to the Union Government. The issuance of both notifications was an exercise of the Union Government's statutory power under the Administrative Tribunals Act.
105. The appellants place reliance on the decision of a Constitution Bench of this Court in Dattatraya Moreshwar Pangarkar v. State of Bombay (1952) 1 SCC 372 and specifically on the sentence in paragraph 24, which states:
"24...when the executive decision affects an outsider or is required to be officially notified or to be communicated it should normally be expressed in the form mentioned in Article 166(1) i.e., in the name of the Governor."
106. The appellants have failed to notice the very next sentence in paragraph 24, by which this Court accepts the argument that Article 166 is a directory provision:
"24.... The learned Attorney General then falls back upon the plea that an omission to make and authenticate an 66 executive decision in the form mentioned in Article 166 does not make the decision itself illegal, for the provisions of that article, like their counterpart in the Government of India Act, are merely directory and not mandatory. In my opinion, this contention of the learned Attorney General must prevail.
25. It is well settled that generally speaking the provisions of a statute creating public duties are directory and those conferring private rights are imperative. When the provisions of a statute relate to the performance of a public duty and the case is such that to hold null and void acts done in neglect of this duty would work serious general inconvenience or injustice to persons who have no control over those entrusted with the duty and at the same time would not promote the main object of the legislature, it has been the practice of the courts to hold such provisions to be directory only, the neglect of them not affecting the validity of the acts done.
107. Article 77 is a directory provision. Article 77(1) refers to the form in which the decision taken by the executive is to be expressed. This is evident from the phrase "expressed to be taken" in clause (1) of Article 77. It does not have any bearing on the process of decision-making itself. The public or the citizenry would stand to suffer most from the consequences of declaring an order that is not expressed in the name of the President null and void. Hence, the appellants' reliance on Dattatraya Moreshwar Pangarkar (supra) is misplaced".67
38. In the light of the aforesaid legal principles It is necessary to note Rule 3-F of KMMC Rules carves out an exception in the matter of allotment of quarrying lease of ordinary building stones by way of lottery which is a departure from allotment by way of auction, in that authorities are required to maintain transparency apart from providing opportunity of participation by general public. As the provision mandates the jurisdictional Deputy Director or Senior Geologist would identify the blocks for the purpose of allotment. The process of identification and compliance with the requirement of reservation as contemplated under the Rules would have to be approved by the District Task Force Committee. After completion of these statutory requirements the decision with regard to identification of blocks and inviting applications of grant of quarry lease specifying the area available for quarrying lease with details of reservation of the blocks and its location with boundaries needs to be notified. Thus, the very object of issuing the notification is to make public the decision taken in compliance with Rule 3-F. We are of the 68 considered view the object of issuing the notification has been achieved in the instant case by publishing the same in the Official Gazette which is the impugned notification. The said notification as already noted above has been issued after approval accorded by the District Task Force Committee to the process of identifying the building stone blocks, which is the essential statutory function. The said decision has been made known by the issuance of said notification which is a directory function. Gist of the said notification has been published in the two local newspapers as noted hereinabove. There is no dispute that in response to the said news item several applicants including petitioners/respondents participated and the entire process has been completed. It is not the case of the petitioners that their interest has been adversely affected or any prejudice is caused to them for non-compliance of the requirement of publication of the notification. The entire case of the petitioners is on the process of allotment of the lease in favour of the private respondents on the grounds which are dealt in the later part of this order. As regards non publication of the notification in the local newspapers, the news items published in the two local newspapers namely "Hosa Digantha"
and "Kolar Prathinidhi" carry substantial information with 69 regard to inviting of applications for the purpose of granting quarry in terms of Section 3-F. Thus, there is substantial compliance with the procedural requirement.
39. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that issuance of notification by Deputy Commissioner and issuance of news item would not go to the root of the matter warranting setting aside the entire process as illegal. Regarding validity of reservation:
40. A common ground raised in all the writ petitions is with regard to non adherence of Rule 3-F(4) providing for reservation of areas as made in the impugned notification reserving 24% each to the applicants belonging to SC/ST, EVS and 2% to the applicants belonging to the PWD, and 50% to the applicants belonging to other categories. It is contended that the total extent of Government land notified is 17 acres and 24% of 17 acres to be reserved for SC/ST would be 4 acres, while area actually reserved in this category is 5.30 acres; that 24% of 17 acres and the category of EWS would be 4 acres while area actually reserved is 3.20 acres; that 2% of 17 acres would be 0.2 acres while actually area reserved is 2 70 acres and 50% of 17 acres would be 8.20 acres while actual area reserves is 5.2 acres. Hence, it is contended that the reservation of the area to be allotted not being in consonance with Rule 3-F(4) requires to be set aside.
41. It is necessary to note that as per Rule 3-F(3) of KMMC Rules, extent of area so identified in blocks of extent of 10 acres and below for allotment under Rule 3-F shall not exceed percentage prescribed in Rule 31-B; The proviso to the said Rule provides that the State Government may issue operational guidelines for identification of such blocks along with other blocks and identification by jurisdictional Deputy Director or Senior Geologist shall be done as per guidelines notified by the Government from time to time.
42. Rule 31-B of KMMC Rules, 1994 reads as under;
31-B. Reservation of Blocks.-(1) Area to be granted for quarrying lease or composite licence shall be delineated by the jurisdictional Deputy Director or Senior Geologist and the blocks will be suitably numbered and Deputy Director or Senior Geologist shall prepare a technical report containing minerals available, estimated resource or reserve, sketch of the block with Global Positioning System co-ordinates and details of approach road and land marks, to guide the prospective applicant to the area to be auctioned, which shall be part of bidding document. 71 (2) For the purpose of reservation, the concerned jurisdictional Deputy Director or Senior Geologist shall group the blocks of all the minor minerals specified in Part A and Part B of Schedule I- A separately for the entire district proposed for grant of quarry lease and follow the roster system. Similar method of grouping shall separately be adopted for the blocks proposed for grant of composite licence:
"Provided that for geological formations that can be used for production of ordinary building stone and production of manufactured sand as well as for other uses, the inter-se ratio of allocation of blocks shall be as follows.-
(a) Ordinary building stone for allocation under Rule 3-F: not exceeding 25% of the area identified in the District;
(b) M sand blocks through auction: twenty five per cent of the area identified in the District; and
(c) Others, including far ordinary building stone through auction: balance of the area identified in the District:
Provided further that in case of shortage of sand in any District, the District Task Force Committee shall have the powers to increase the area for M sand blocks in the District up to a level of fifty per cent by reducing the area under Others category:
Provided also that the District Task Force Committee shall have powers to increase the area for Others category in case M sand blocks to that extent a powers not required in the District.
(3) After grouping of the blocks as under sub-rule (2), concerned District Task Force Committee shall reserve the blocks so numbered, except blocks that have been identified for allotment as under Rule 3-F, by way of lottery to the following categories as per percentage mentioned against each category;
(i) Persons or company or firm belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes 24%;72
(ii) Persons or company or firm who have already established intend to establish any mineral-based industries that use minor or minerals as raw material in the State -14%;
(iii) Persons belonging to economically weaker section who is a quarry operator by tradition and whose livelihood is depending on quarrying or registered society of such persons- 10%.
(iv) Persons with disabilities (physically challenged)-
2%; and
(v) Others-50%:
Provided that no blocks shall be reserved for the category at clause '[(iii)] of sub-rule (3) to grant composite licence and the same shall be considered as others category:
Provided further that the Tahsildar of the concerned Taluk in which the persons reside or where the registered society of such persons is located shall be competent to certify with regard to eligibility of persons or Registered Society of such persons for the purpose of clause (iii) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 31-B. (4) Notwithstanding anything in sub-rule (3), for quarry blocks for production of M Sand, the concerned District Task Force Committee shall reserve the blocks so numbered for M sand production, by way of lottery, to the following categories as per percentage mentioned against each category.-
(i) Persons or company or firm belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes or registered society of such persons-24%;
(ii) Persons or companies or firms who have already established M-sand production units in the State -
24%;
(iii) Persons with disabilities (physically challenged) - 2%; and
(iv) Others-50%.
73
(5) The blocks reserved as under sub-rules (3) and (4) above shall be disposed only through auctions. Persons belonging to respective category shall only be allowed to participate in the auction:
Provided that allotment of blocks reserved under clause (a) of first proviso sub-rule (2) of Rule 31-B, shall be done as per procedure prescribed in Rule 3- F. (6) If the blocks so reserved are not disposed even after two notifications, it shall be notified for the "Others" category. Any shortfall for the category specified in clause (i) of sub-rule (3) shall be made good in the next allotment treating it as backlog:
Provided that if the backlog continues for more than three rounds of application of roster cycle, and there are no bidders from the said category, then the Director Mines and Geology shall have the power to declare the backlog to have lapsed and such backlog blocks shall go to the General Category for auction.
(7) Operational guidelines for identification of blocks, reservation and roster, carrying of backlog and lapsing of backlog shall be notified by the State Government by way of general or special orders from time to time.
43. Thus perusal of Rule 31-B(2) referred to above suggest that the identification of the blocks for the purpose of reservation in respect of mines and minerals shall be made for the entire district.
44. Learned Additional Government Advocate referring to the aforesaid Rule 31-B submitted that reservation in the instant case has been done in compliance with the requirement 74 of Rule 31-B and the guidelines. Learned Additional Government Advocate has also filed a memo dated 2.8.2022 along with a copy of details of blocks identified in the Kolar District for grant of quarry lease through auction under Rule 31-B of KMMC Rules. As seen in the said document enclosed with the memo for the purpose of reservation under Rule 3-F in the District of Kolar totally five villages and the survey numbers at Sl.Nos.10, 11, 13 and 14 are identified. The said villages and details of the land referred to therein are Sy.No.1 in Bussanahalli, Sy.No.3 in Talagunda, Sy.No.58 in Dinne Hosahalli, Sy.No.2 in Danavalli and Sy.No.34 in Talagunda- Purahalli. The total percentage of the blocks reserved for the purpose of Rule 3-F is shown as 24.73% in these villages and survey numbers. Learned Additional Government Advocate has also furnished the guidelines referred to in proviso to Rule 3- F(3) of KMMC Rules. In view of the aforesaid material documents made available by the learned Additional Government Advocate in justification of his answer to the contention of the petitioners to the effect that identification and the reservation of the blocks for the purpose of Rule 3-F of KMMC Rules, the area coming within the district of Kolar has been taken into consideration and not just the area coming 75 within survey No.58 of DinneHosahalli and Sy.No.2 of Danavalli, this Court is of considered view that there appears to be substantial compliance with the required rules for the purpose of reservation contemplated under Rule 3-F of KMMC Rules. As such the contentions of the petitioners regarding non-adherence of rules providing for reservation for the purpose of Rule 3-F cannot be accepted.
REGARDING THE CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONERS IN W.P.1994/2020 AND W.P.1656/2022 WITH RESPECT TO NAGAPPA (RESPONDENT No.4 AND 6 RESPECTIVELY IN THE SAID WRIT PETITION)
45. Nagappa, who has been arrayed as respondent No.6 in W.P.No.1994/2020 and respondent No.4 in W.P.No.1656/2022 having been allotted block No.1 of DinneHosahalli village, it is the contention of the petitioner that the said Nagappa though not had applied for allotment of identified block in DinneHosahalli village, and had applied only seeking allotment of identified block No.3 in Danavalli village, the petitioners have relied upon the documents purported to have been obtained under Right to Information Act. On perusal of the record it is seen that petitioner in W.P.No.1994/2020 has furnished certain documents claimed to have obtained through one Mr. R. Devaraj. Similarly petitioner in W.P.No.1656/2022 76 has relied upon the documents obtained by one Mr.D.C.Venkatesh, Son of Chinnappa. Learned Additional Government Advocate disputed the authenticity of the documents sought to be relied upon by the petitioners. Consequently this Court by order dated 19.04.2023 had directed the petitioners to furnish copies of the documents obtained by them under Right to Information Act and also directed learned Additional Government Advocate to furnish corresponding records for having issued such documents.
46. In furtherance thereof petitioner in W.P.No.1994/2020 filed a memo dated 20.04.2013 along with document consisting of 56 pages. Perusal of page No.1 of the document enclosed with the memo reveal that the same is a reply letter issued by Public Information Officer, Department of Mines and Geology, Kolar on 29.01.2021 in response to an application dated 11.01.2021 filed by one Sri.R.Devaraj enclosing the information sought for by him consisting of 387 pages. In the said memo filed by the petitioner it is contended that; (i) At page No.22 of the documents name of Nagappa, respondent No.6 is shown as eligible applicant in respect of Danavalli, Block No.3. (ii) That at pages 26 and 27 of the 77 documents which consist of names of 50 eligible applicants in respect of block No.1 of DinneHosahalli village, name of Nagappa, respondent No.6 is not mentioned while the name of the petitioner Sri.B.A.Channarayappa finds mention at page No.50. (iii) It is also stated at page Nos.50 to 54 which give details of 60 applicants who had applied for block No.1 of DinneHosahalli Village, (DH-1) name of Nagappa, respondent No.6 is not found. (iv) It is further stated in the memo that at Sl.No.37 and 38 of page No.52 of the documents, names of Narayanaswamy, son of Venkataswamy and Narayanaswamy, son of Munivenkatappa are mentioned and that they are two different persons and therefore there cannot be any error in describing their names as one and the same.
47. In response to the aforesaid order of this Court dated 19.04.2023, learned Additional Government Advocate also filed a memo dated 24.04.2023 along with documents consisting of 744 pages. Interestingly as per the information and records furnished by learned Additional Government Advocate, Sri.B.A.Channarayappa, petitioner in W.P.No.1994/2020 has himself filed an application under Right to Information Act in Form A on 02.11.2020 seeking copies of 78 documents in respect of nine blocks granted in favour of nine persons under Rule 3-F of KMMC Rules, 1994 in respect of Sy.No.2 of Danavalli and Sy.No.58 of DinneHosahalli. In response to his application on 24.11.2020 documents consisting of 392 pages have been furnished. Certified copy of the entire file pertaining to issuance of said information under Right to Information Act is furnished as per Annexure-R-1 to the said memo. Though the petitioner Sri.B.A. Channarayappa himself has made an application under Right to Information Act and has obtained the documents as above, the reasons for he not producing the said documents obtained under Right to Information Act is not forthcoming either in the writ petition or in the memo dated 20.04.2023. There is also no explanation as to the relationship between said R.Devaraj and the petitioner. In the said memo filed by learned Additional Government Advocate it is contended that documents produced by the petitioner purportedly obtained by said Mr.R.Devaraj are not borne out of the records maintained at the office of Senior Geologist, Kolar. In view of there being no explanation by petitioner-B.A.Channarayappa of he applying and obtaining the information as seen in Annexure-R-1 to the memo filed by learned Additional Government Advocate and he not relying 79 upon the same in the writ petition and on the contrary, he choosing to produce document allegedly obtained by said Mr.R.Devaraj (authenticity of which is denied by learned Additional Government Advocate), this Court is of considered view that it may not be safe to rely upon the documents furnished by the petitioner in W.P.No.1994/2020 to support their contention of Nagappa the Respondent No.6, not applying for allotment of block No.1 in DinneHosahalli Village.
48. Learned Additional Government Advocate in the aforesaid memo dated 24.04.2023 has furnished documents obtained by one Mr.Venkatesh D.C. which is relied upon by the petitioner in W.P.No.1656/2022. As per Annexure-R-2 to the said memo, the said Mr.Venkatesh D.C. had made an application on 02.06.2022 under Right to Information Act seeking certified copy of the ledger containing the signature of applicants who received the applications issued under Rule 3-F of KMMC Rules, 1994 consisting of 54 pages. The said petitioner in W.P.No.1656/2022 has also relied upon the information obtained by said Mr.R.Devaraj. Learned Additional Government Advocate has furnished certified copies of the application dated 07.08.2021 seeking details of the grant of 3 80 acres 10 guntas in favour of Nagappa in Sy.No.58 of DinneHosahalli as well as application dated 22.03.2021 seeking information in respect of "entire records pertaining to applications filed by the applicants in respect of 9 blocks" under Rule 3-F in Sy.No.2 of Danavalli and Sy.No.58 of DinneHosahalli filed by said Mr.R.Devaraj along with the information furnished by the concerned authority as per Annexures-R3 and R4 to the said memo.
49. On perusal of Annexures-R3 and R4 it is seen that Nagappa s/o Munishamappa, the Respondent No.6 has applied for grant of area measuring 3 acres 10 guntas in Sy.No.58 of DinneHosahalli and has paid the application fee by way of Challan bearing No.CR0120085300361374/20/1/2020 and his name has been shown in the final list of selected applicants at Sl.No.1. The said information regarding Nagappa having applied for grant of area in Sy.No.58 of DinneHosahalli has been furnished by the authorities on two occasions in response to the aforesaid two applications dated 07.08.2021 and 22.03.2021.
50. Though the petitioners in W.P.No.1994/2022 as well as in W.P.No.1656/2022 have relied upon certain 81 information purportedly obtained by said R.Devaraj, authenticity of which seriously disputed by learned Additional Government Advocate, have not furnished the details obtained by R.Devaraj as seen in Annexures-R3 and R4 filed by the learned Additional Government Advocate. In view of availability of the aforesaid material documents with regard to Nagappa who is arrayed as respondent No.6 in W.P.No.1994/2020 and respondent No.4 in W.P.No.1656/2022 having made applications both in respect of DinneHoshalli village and also in respect of Danavalli village, the contentions of the petitioners contrary to the same cannot be countenanced. We do not find any illegality or irregularity in said Nagappa having been allotted block No.1 in Sy.No.58 of the DinneHosahalli village.
51. As regards the contention that in view of Rule 18 of KMMC Rules 1994 since the lease has not been executed within six months of granting of quarry the lease deed to have been revoked, it is necessary to note that Rule 18 though provides six months period for execution of lease it also provides further period as the competent authority may allow in this behalf. In the instant case though in the proceedings dated 01.09.2020 respondent-Nagappa was held to be entitled for grant of 82 quarry, the notification was published on 23.10.2020. Along with the statement of objection respondent No.4 has produced Annexure-R-3 a communication issued by respondent No.3 on 12.02.2021 approving the quarrying plan. Perusal of the said Annexure-R-3 further reveal that the respondent -Nagappa had submitted a letter dated 13.12.2020 submitting quarrying plan in three sets. The said quarrying plan appears to have been approved and a communication in this regard is at Annexure-R-
3. A quarrying lease has been executed on 27.01.2022. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, namely requirement of approval of quarrying plan and a decision in this regard was conveyed by the respondent authority on 12.02.2021, that is it needs to be read as the competent authority having allowed further period as contemplated under Rule 18 and condoning the delay in execution and registration of lease as contemplated under third proviso to said Rule 18.
Regarding claim of petitioner in W.P.No.1994/2022 for renewal of licence;
52. Petitioner has claimed that he was granted a quarry lease in QL No.924 over an area of 04.20 acres in Government 83 land at Sy.No.58 of DinneHosahalli village, Kolar Taluk and District valid for 5 years of till 28.06.2011 to extract ordinary building stones which is a non-specified mines and mineral covered under KMMC Rules, 2016 and that he had submitted a renewal application dated 25.03.2011 and that in terms of newly inserted Rule 8A effective from 12.08.2016 petitioner is entitled for grant of deemed extension of lease from 28.06.2011 till 27.06.2021. As such seeks for issue of writ of mandamus.
53. In the statement of objections filed on behalf of the respondent -authorities the said claim of the petitioner has been refuted. In that it is contended that originally father of the petitioner was granted quarrying lease in respect of the area claimed by the petitioner for a period of 5 years from 29.06.1996. Thereafter, renewal was granted for a period of 5 years from 29.06.2006 which came to an end on 28.06.2011, whereupon the petitioner filed a renewal application on 25.03.2011. It is stated that the petitioner has not obtained no objection certificates as contemplated under Rule 8(5) of the KMMC Rules, 1994 within time and that in view of amendment to the KMMC Rules, 1994 effective from 12.08.2016, the 84 concept of granting renewal has been replaced by deemed extension from its original lease period and as such petitioner is entitled for the benefit of deemed extension as per Rule 8-A(4) of KMMC Rules upto 31.03.2020 and in view of non furnishing of required certificates from the petitioner nothing survives for consideration of the application seeking renewal of quarrying of lease by the petitioner.
54. In furtherance to the statement of objections, learned Additional Government Advocate has also filed a memo dated 22.07.2021 along with four documents namely, (i) original lease deed from 29.06.1996, (ii) second renewal (lease deed from 29.06.2001), (iii) third renewal (lease deed from 29.06.2006) and (iv) renewal application dated 25.03.2011. The said documents are not disputed by the petitioner.
55. Relying upon the aforesaid documents, it is also contended by learned Additional Government Advocate that if the original period of grant of lease is reckoned from 29.06.1996 the entitlement of petitioner if any for renewal has 85 stood expired long ago. Thus, it is contended on both the counts the petitioner is not entitled for renewal of lease.
56. In response to the above contention of the Additional Government Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the authority claims that the lease dated 19.07.2001 is a second renewal of the earlier lease granted in favour of father of the petitioner it is indeed a grant and not a renewal. As such, counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the period of lease cannot be reckoned from 29.06.1996 which was granted in favour of the father of the petitioner and has to be reckoned only from 19.07.2001 and the deemed extension of 20 years from the said date would cover the period beyond the issuance of notification.
57. The aforesaid contention of the petitioner cannot be countenanced. Firstly, the petitioner has not revealed the fact with regard to lease which was granted in favour of his father on 29.06.1996. Secondly, the petitioner has also not revealed in the writ petition the subsequent lease granted in his favour on 19.07.2001 which was effective from 29.06.2001. The 86 petitioner has only produced grant of lease dated 08.02.2010 for a period of 5 years from 29.06.2006 as per Annexure-A to the writ petition. On a query by this Court regarding three lease deeds produced by learned Additional Government Advocate along with a memo dated 22.07.2021 referred to hereinabove wherein all the 3 lease deeds has been referred to as "grant of lease" in Form -E and petitioner not bringing forth the said details in his writ petition except producing quarrying lease deed dated 08.02.2010 at Annexure-A, learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to provide any plausible explanation. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner accepted the grant of lease as accorded by the authorities. The said explanation cannot be countenanced, as there is clear suppression of facts by the petitioner. In the light of undisputed documents produced by the learned Additional Government Advocate as per the memo referred in the memo the first grant made in favour of the father of the petitioner dated 25.11.1998, there is a reference "original" on the right hand top of the document and in the lease deed dated 19.07.2001 effective from 29.06.2001 there is a reference as "second renewal" on the top of the said document. Though, in the third lease deed dated 08.02.2010 87 there is a mention on the top "as original", considering the area of all these three lease deeds being 4.20 acres in Sy.No.58 of DinneHosahalli village with the same boundaries forming part of all these lease deeds, it can be safely inferred that the lease which was originally granted in favour of father of the petitioner initially on 29.06.1996 has been periodically renewed upto 28.06.2011. The petitioner cannot therefore, be heard to contend that the grant of lease was for first time made effective from 29.06.2006. As such the petitioner is not entitled for deemed extension under the amended KMMC Rules beyond the period of the notification. The said contention of the petitioner and the relief of direction sought in this regard for renewal of lease cannot be accepted. Regarding claim of the petitioner in W.P.No.1999/2020 for grant of lease:
58. Petitioner- Sri.D.N.Devaraj has contended that he had made three applications seeking grant of quarrying lease for building stones over an area of 0.10, 0.20 and 0.10 in Sy.No.02 of Danavalli village, Kolar 88 Taluk an district on 27.10.2014 and 14.03.2014. That by endorsement dated 18.11.2016 the said applications were rejected constraining the petitioner to file writ petitions in W.P.No.53282/2018, W.P.No.55349-50/2018 wherein this Court by order dated 15.12.2018 while setting aside the endorsement dated 18.11.2016, directed the authorities to obtain necessary no objection certificates as contemplated under Rule 8(5) of the KMMC Rules and to decide the applications within four weeks. Thus, it is contended that without complying with the said orders, respondent -authorities could not have notified the area in respect of which applications of the petitioner were pending consideration.
59. In response, learned Additional Government Advocate refers to an order dated 16.08.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.No.10601/2019 wherein this Court while upholding the constitutional validity of Rule 8B has held that the earlier judgments will not have binding precedent while deciding applications strictly under Rule 8B. It is necessary to refer to the said Judgment of this court 89 reported in K. Thirumalesh Vs. State of Karnataka and others reported in 2020 (1) KAR. LJ 241 (Division Bench) wherein at paragraph No.47 under heading conclusions as under;
"47. In short the conclusions can be summarized as under:
(a) Rule 8-B of the said Rules, as amended on 12th August, 2016 is constitutionally valid;
(b) All pending applications for grant of mining leases/licenses under the said Rules which were filed before 12th August, 2016 and pending on the said date shall become automatically ineligible unless the cases specifically fall within any of the exceptions specifically carved out in clauses (a) to (d) and (d-1) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B.
(c) Only those application which were filed before 12th August, 2016 to which any of the clauses (a) to (d) and (d-1) of sub-rule(2) of Rule 8-B applies, can be decided in accordance with the Rules prevailing prior to 12th August, 2016;
(d) While deciding the question whether clauses (a) to
(d) and (d-1) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B are attracted, if any deeming fiction providing for grant of deemed no objection certificates is expressly available under any of the express provisions of the said Rules such as sub-rule (6) of Rule 8, the same could be applied;
(e) In view of express provisions of sub-rule (1) and (2) of Rule 8-B, merely because there is a failure on the part of the authorities to obtain clearances/no objection certificates/ reports, the mandate of sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B cannot be ignored and it shall apply with full force inasmuch as by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B, all applications received prior to 12th August, 2016 were made ineligible. The only exception provided is in the sub-rule (2) in case of the applications which are governed by 90 clause (a) to (d) and (d-1) of sub-rule (2). No other exception to sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B has been provided in the said Rules and therefore, cannot be carved out by the Court".
60. In the instant case the petitioner has not canvassed any arguments of his application coming within the exceptions provided under clauses (a) to (d) and (d1) of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 8B as held by this Court in the aforesaid judgment. In view of the law down laid by this Court in the aforesaid judgment the claim of the petitioner that he is entitled for relief of directions for consideration of his applications in terms of the earlier order dated 11.04.2018 and order dated 15.12.2018 of this Court extensively referred to in the writ petition and also the further contention that until determination of the said applications the respondents cannot proceed with allotment of identified areas cannot be countenanced. As such the relief sought in this regard is rejected.
61. The points raised above are answered accordingly.
91
For the aforesaid reasons and analysis following:
ORDER Writ petitions are dismissed.
No order as to cost.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE SBN