Sri. S. Nagaraju vs State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 1555 Kant

                           1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

                       PRESENT

      THE HON'BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE

                          AND

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

          WRIT PETITION NO.2472/2021 (GM-MM-S)

BETWEEN

SRI. S.NAGARAJU,
S/O LATE R.SIDDEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
JYOTHIGOWDANAPURA VILLAGE,
CHANDAKAVADI VILLAGE,
CHANDAKAVADI HOBLI,
CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK AND DISTRICT.
                                         ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI.ANIRUDH ANAND, ADVOCATE)


AND

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA,
       REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
       DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
       AND INDUSTRIES (MSME, MINES AND TEXTILE),
       VIKASA SOUDHA,
       DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
       BANGALORE - 560 001.
                                     2



2.   THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR,
     DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY,
     KHANIJA BHAVAN,
     RACE COURSE ROAD,
     BANGALORE - 560 001.
                                  ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. I.TARANATH POOJARY, AGA)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
i)DECLARE BY ISSUE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT, THAT THE
KARNATAKA MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION (AMENDMENT)
RULES, 2016, DATED 12.08.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE - E IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, NULL AND VOID.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                                ORDER

Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the

validity of the rule which is subject matter of challenge in this petition

has been upheld by this Court by Judgment and Order dated 01st June

2020 in Writ Petition No.53084/2016 and other connected matters.

2. Unless and until the said Judgment and Order dated 01st June

2020 is interfered with by the Apex Court, it is not open for this Court to

take a different view.

3. The Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that

in the petitions which are dismissed by Judgment and Order dated 01st

June 2020, this Court continued the interim relief after the disposal of

the petitions and the same interim relief has been continued by the

Apex Court by the Order dated 27th January 2021.

4. While disposing of a group of petitions by the Judgment and

Order dated 01st June 2020, this Court extended the interim relief which

was operating during the pendency of the petition. There is no interim

relief granted in this petition. In any case, non-existing interim relief

cannot be extended.

5. Petition is, accordingly, rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that deficit Court been

has been paid. The submission is recorded.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

bnv