WP14621 22 27 07 2023

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 PETITON No.1999 OF 2020 (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
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
3
5(b) SMT. PREMA

W/O NARAYANASWAMY
D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
DODDAKADTHUR POST
MALUR TALUK
5(c) SMT. MUNILAKSHAMMA

W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT KHAJIKALLAHALLI VILLAGE
NARASAPURA POST
KOLAR TALUK
5(d) SRI. DEVARAJ

S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
DODDAKADTHUR POST
MALUR TALUK
5(e) SMT. ASHA

W/O GANESH
D/O LATE KRISHANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT BALIGANAHALLI VILLAGE
MARIKUPPA, KGF
…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

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

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

R-6 & R-7 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

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

AND INDUSTIRES
VIKAS SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE DIRECTOR AND COMMISSIONER

KHANIJA BHAVANA
RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001.
4. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST

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

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
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
KOLAR DISTRICT
KOLAR – 563 101.
4. SRI. NAGAPPA
S/O MUNISHAMAPPA
MAJOR
R/AT DODDAVALLABI VILLAGE
NARASAPURA HOBLI
KOLAR-563 102.
…RESPONDENTS

SRI. NATARAJ BALLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)

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.

14
3.6 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.
46
Analysis :
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 «¯ÉÃªÁj
PÉÆÃ¯ÁgÀ : PÉÆÃ¯ÁgÀ f¯ÉèAiÀÄ ¢£ÉßÃºÉÆ¸ÀºÀ½î 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 «¯ÉÃªÁj ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁUÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ.
D¸ÀPÀÛ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀÄ CfðUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß f¯ÁèqÀ½vÀ ¨sÀªÀ£ÀzÀ, UÀtÂ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
¨sÀÆ«eÁÕ£À E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ »jAiÀÄ ¨sÆ À «eÁÕ¤AiÀÄªÀgÀ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è r¸ÉA§gï 23
jAzÀ CfðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÄÀ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼Æ É A¢UÉ 30 ¢£ÀUÀ¼ÉÆ¼ÀUÁV
¸À°è¸À§ºÀÄzÁVzÉ. ºÉaÑ£À ªÀiÁ»wUÁV UÀtÂ 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

WP14621 22 27 07 2023

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

WP14621 22 27 07 2023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF JULY, 2023

IN WP. NO.14621 OF 2022

1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

2. THE DIRECTOR AND COMMISSIONER

3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

4. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST

5(a) SMT. RATNAMMA

5(b) SMT. PREMA

5(c) SMT. MUNILAKSHAMMA

5(d) SRI. DEVARAJ

5(e) SMT. ASHA

(BY SRI. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

IN WP NO. 1994 OF 2020

2 . THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

3 . THE DIRECTOR AND COMMISSIONER

4 . THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST

5 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

7. DINNEHOSAHALLI DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR

(BY SRI. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5;

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

IN WP NO. 1999 OF 2020

(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOI. SR., ADVOCATE FOR

2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

3. THE DIRECTOR AND COMMISSIONER

4. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST

5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

(BY SRI. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5,

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

IN WP NO. 1656 OF 2022

(BY SRI. I. THARANATH POOJARY SR. ADVOCATE FOR

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

2. DISTRICT TASK FORCE COMMITTEE

KOLAR – 563 101.

(BY SRI. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED,

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:

3.1 Petitioner –B.A.Channarayappa has filed this writ

(a) issue of writ of certiorari to quash the impugned

(b) issue of writ of mandamus directing fourth

(c) to direct fourth respondent to grant extension of

(d) issue writ of certiorari quashing grant of

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