Karnataka High Court
Sri Vijaybharat Bhojappa Ballari vs The Secretary To Government on 17 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:10911-DB
WP No. 3059 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
WRIT PETITION NO. 3059 OF 2025 (GM-MM_S)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI VIJAYBHARAT BHOJAPPA BALLARI
S/O BHOJAPPA BALLARI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/O. MOTEBENNUR, TALUK- BYADAGI
HAVERI DISTRICT - 581 106.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIVALLI SHIVAYOGI YALLAPPAGOUDA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally AND:
signed by H
K HEMA
Location: 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
High Court
of Karnataka DEPT. OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES
VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR /COMMISSIONER
DEPT. OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST
DEPT. OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:10911-DB
WP No. 3059 of 2025
G.G. MAGAVI CHAMBERS
II FLOOR, P.B. ROAD
HAVERI - 581 110.
4. THE ADDL. DIRECTOR AND REVISIONAL
AUTHORITY MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT
NORTH REGION, BELLARY DISTRICT
BELLARY - 583 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION
QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT / OFFICE ORDER
NO.GaABhuEe/HiBhuHa/KaGaGu/2016-17/2504 DATED 17.02.2017
ISSUED BY RESPONDENT No.3 AS BEING ARBITRARY,
ERRONEOUS AND CONTRARY TO LAW, EQUITY AND JUSTICE
(ANNEXURE-B), ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:10911-DB
WP No. 3059 of 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)
Heard learned advocate Mr. Shivalli Shivayogi
Yallappagouda for the petitioner and learned Additional
Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar for the respondent-State
and its authorities who appeared upon service of copy of the
petition in advance.
2. The challenge in this petition is directed against the order
dated 26.04.2014 passed by respondent No.4-the Revisional
Authority in Revision Petition No.30 of 2023-24 rejecting the
revision application and in turn, confirming the endorsement/order
dated 17.02.2017 passed by respondent No.3-the Senior
Geologist.
2.1. By the said order dated 17.02.2017, the application of the
etitioner made in the year 2013 for grant of quarry lease for
extracting ordinary building stone in part of the land bearing
Sy.No.73 admeasuring 1 Acre which is stated to be government
land at Kajjari Village, Ranebennur Taluka, Haveri District, came to
be rejected.
NC: 2025:KHC:10911-DB
3. While rejecting the application, Competent Authority noted
that in view of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules,
1994 more particularly, amended Rule 8(5) of the said Rules, the
lease for minor mineral building stone will have to be granted by
conducting tender-cum-auction process. It was recorded that the
application of the petitioner became ineligible in view of Rule 8-B(1)
of the said Rules and therefore was liable to be rejected.
4. Against the said order dated 17.2.2017, the revision
application was filed by the petitioner which was delayed by 6
years and 3 months. The revision was filed under Rule 53 of the
Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994.
4.1. Rule 53 reads as under,
"53. Revision.- (1) Any person aggrieved by an order of
the Competent Authority not above the rank of
Additional Director may, within sixty days of the date of
communication of such order apply in
Form-RV to the Controlling Authority for revision of such
order.
(2) Any person aggrieved by an order of the
competent authority above the rank of Additional
Director may, within sixty days from the date of
communication of such order apply in Form-RV to the
State Government for revision of such order:
Provided that the Controlling Authority or the State
Government, as the case may be, may, if he or it is
satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not
making the application in-time, entertain such
NC: 2025:KHC:10911-DB
application if it is made within a period of thirty days
from the date of expiry of the aforesaid period of sixty
days.
(2-A) Any person aggrieved by the order of the
competent authority or approving authority rejecting any
offer or bid under Rule 31-H may within sixty days from
the date of such order apply in Form RV to the State
Government for revision of such order.
(2-B) ...
(3) ...
(4) ...
(5) ...
(6) ..."
4.2. Thus, the Rule making authority provided period of 90 days
from the date of communication of the order to be subjected to
revisional proceedings. As per the proviso, if the applicant is able
to show sufficient cause for not making the application within the
said 90 days, further grace period of 30 days is available from the
date of expiry of the said period.
5. While dismissing the revisional application on the ground that
it was beyond the limitation, the revisional authority observed that
the revision petition was highly belated and therefore was not
maintainable.
5.1. In addition to the said aspect, it was noted by the Revisional
Authority that as per Rule 15-A(1) of the said Rules, no quarry
NC: 2025:KHC:10911-DB
lease or licence shall be granted with the extent less than the
minimum as provided in Schedule II-A of the Rules and that, such
extent in respect of the instant mineral is 2 Acres implying thereby
that if the application is made for a land comprising less than 2
Acres, it is not liable to be considered.
5.2. In addition to the above aspect, the further aspect considered
by the Revisional Authority is that the proposed stone quarry area
is coming within 10 kilometers of the Eco Sensitive Zone of
Ranebennur, Krishnamruga.
5.3. While the observations are made by the Revisional Authority
in the aforesaid aspects also, what is waived by the revisional
authority is the delay of six years and three months which rendered
the revisional application incompetent in law.
6. Learned advocate for the petitioner argued in vain that the
petitioner-applicant was not aware of passing of the order dated
17.2.2017 and that, he was not communicated with the said order.
This ground is coming for the first time in the course of hearing of
the petition and when the memorandum of revisional application is
seen which is part of the record of the writ petition, not a whisper is
NC: 2025:KHC:10911-DB
made about the delay aspect. It was never the case of the
petitioner that he was not communicated with the said order.
7. In any view, the court is not inclined to entertain the petition
for the reasons recorded above. The petition is dismissed as
meritless.
At this stage, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted
that Rule 8-B, as amended in the year 2023, would come to the
rescue of the petitioner. This aspect is outside and beyond the
scope of controversy in this petition. Notwithstanding the rejection
of this petition, it is open for the petitioner to approach the
Competent Authority seeking the benefit of Rule 8-B, if available in
law and in the facts of the case, the Competent Authority shall
consider such request, if made entirely on merits and in
accordance with law.
SD/-
(N. V. ANJARIA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
SD/-
(M.I.ARUN)
JUDGE
VMB
