Karnataka High Court
M/S Annapurneshwari Minerals vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 October, 2025
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
WRIT PETITION NO.265 OF 2021 (GM-MM-S)
BETWEEN:
M/S. ANNAPURNESHWARI MINERALS
OFFICE AT NO.214/1
AADITYA NILAYA
8TH MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS
G.M. PALYA, NEW THIPPASANDRA
BANGALORE - 560 075
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING PARTNER
SMT. BHAVYA MUNIRAJ
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI BHAT GANAPATHY NARAYAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VIDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
-2-
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
AND REVISION AUTHORITY
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
SOUTH ZONE, MYSORE - 570 004.
4. THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
KANIJA BHAVAN
BENGALURU - 560 001.
5. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY (MINES)
VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWER
13TH FLOOR, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VIDHI
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE
FOR R-1 TO 5)
---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN REVISION PETITION
NO.71/2019-20, DATED 13.08.2020, PASSED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT, AS PER ANNEXURE-G,
CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE IMPUGNED REJECTION
ORDER DATED 18.01.2014 ISSUED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-E & ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS
PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia,
impugning an order dated 13.08.2020 passed by the Joint
Director and Revision Authority, Department of Mines and
Geology, South Zone, Mysuru [the Revisional Authority]. The
petitioner also assails the Rejection Order dated 18.01.2014
passed by respondent No.5 [The Senior Geologist], whereby
the petitioner's application for quarry lease in respect of lease
No.138 for mining building stones, in an area covering one acre
falling in Survey No.43, Chikka Nagavalli Village in
Chikkaballapur District, was rejected. The said rejection was in
terms of Rule 28 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession
Rules, 1994 [the 1994 Rules].
2. The petitioner claims that he was carrying on business of
quarrying building stones pursuant to quarry lease/licence
being QL No.138 in an area of one acre falling in Survey
No.43, Chikka Nagavalli Village in Chikkaballapur District. The
said quarry lease was initially granted to one
Shri Doddachinnappa [the original lessee] on 18.03.2011 for
a period of ten years with effect from 30.12.2003. The term of
the lease expired on 29.12.2013. Prior to the expiry of the said
lease, the original lessee (Shri Doddachinnappa) made an
application before the Senior Geologist for transfer of the
licence/lease in favour of the petitioner. The said application
was accepted by an order dated 26.12.2013. The quarry
lease/licence in question was transferred in favour of the
petitioner. The original licensee also executed a deed of
transfer of the quarry lease/licence in a requisite form [Form-T]
on 19.12.2013.
3. The petitioner made an application for renewal of the
quarry lease on 30.12.2013, which was rejected by an order
dated 18.01.2014. The petitioner challenged the said rejection
order before the Revisional Authority by filing a Revision
Application No.71/2019-20. Although, respondent No.5 passed
an order dated 18.01.2014 rejecting the petitioner's application,
the same was not communicated to the petitioner at the
material time. The petitioner claims that he had visited the
office of respondent No.5 in the month of September 2019 to
enquire about the status of his application for renewal of quarry
lease/licence in question and was informed about the rejection
order. The petitioner also claims that he had applied for a copy
of the said order under the Right to Information Act, 2005 [the
RTI Act] and secured the same. He claims that immediately,
on receiving a copy of the impugned order, he filed the revision
petition.
4. The petitioner's application for renewal was rejected on
the ground that it was not filed prior to expiry of the lease. It is
the petitioner's case that he had applied for renewal of the
quarry lease/licence on 30.12.2013, as 29.12.2013 was a
Sunday and therefore, a holiday. He relies on the provisions of
Sections 9 and 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 [the 1897
Act] in support of his contention that his application for renewal
was filed within time.
Order of the Revisional Authority
5. The Revisional Authority, essentially, framed two
questions for consideration. First, whether the impugned
rejection order is contrary to law; and second, whether the
revision application is valid.
5.1 Both the questions were answered in negative.
5.2 The Revisional Authority found that there was no
explanation or valid reason for not filing the revision application
within the time prescribed under Sub-rule (1) Rule 53 of the
1994 Rules.
6. It is material to note that the quarry lease in question was
granted to the original lessee on 30.12.1998 for five years. The
said lease expired on 29.12.2003. Thereafter,
on 03.02.2006, the original lessee filed a renewal application,
which was rejected by respondent No.5 by an order dated
21.04.2006. The original lessee preferred a Revision petition
before respondent No.3 under Rule 53 of the 1994 Rules which
was allowed and the Revisional Authority issued orders for
processing the original lessee's application for renewal of the
lease. Pursuant to the said direction, the quarry lease deed
bearing No.138 was executed on 18.03.2011 granting quarry
lease in favour of the original lessee with effect from
30.12.2003 for a period of ten years.
7. As noted above, the original lessee transferred the lease
in favour of the petitioner, which was accepted by respondent
No.5 in terms of an order dated 26.12.2013. The petitioner
made application for renewal of the lease on 30.12.2013. The
petitioner's application for renewal was also accompanied by
two demand drafts for a sum of `2,000/- and `2,500/- towards
fees for renewal application and security deposit respectively.
However, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that the
said application was rejected since it was not accompanied
with certificate to the effect that the petitioner had cleared all
dues towards the Government.
8. Rule 21 of the 1994 Rules which came into effect from
16.12.2013 is relevant and is set out below:
"21. Application for grant or renewal of a quarrying
lease in respect of non-specified minor minerals:-
(1) Every application for grant of a quarrying lease to
quarry non-specified minor minerals in the land
belonging to the State Government [which has not been
notified under Rule 8-B] shall be made in Form-AQL to
the Competent Authority. The application shall be
accompanied by a security deposit in the form of
treasury challan for a sum calculated [at the rate of
rupees five thousand per acre and an application fee of
rupees two thousand] in the form of a treasury challan
[together with a certificate issued by the Competent
Authority for having cleared the arrears, if any, in
respect of any lease held by the applicant as on the
date of making the application and other documents]
area sketch etc., as specified in Form-AQL.
[(1-A) Any person having quarry lease may apply over
the adjoining land along with the details of lease held
and combined sketch of held area and applied area to
the Competent Authority in the manner as specified in
sub-rule (1) only for the purpose of meeting the criteria
of minimum extent stipulated for grant or renewal of
quarry lease and such applied area shall make the
existing lease area contiguous:
Provided that the lessee to whom, lease is granted
under this rule shall commence the quarrying
operations only after and amalgamation with the
existing lease and after obtaining Environment
clearance for the expansion of the project.]
[(2) Every application for renewal of a quarrying lease
to quarry non-specified minor mineral in the land
belonging to the State Government which has not been
notified under Rule 8-B shall be made in Form R to the
Competent Authority on or before ninety days before
the expiry of the lease together with a certificate to the
Competent Authority for having cleared the arrears, if
any, in respect of any lease held by the applicant as on
the date of making the application. The application shall
be accompanied by an application fee of rupees one
thousand in the form of a treasury challans together
with the difference of security deposit, if any, to be paid
by the lessee at t he prevailing rate, sketch as specified
in FORM R:]
Provided that an application for grant or renewal of a
quarrying lease by any person belonging to
economically weaker section and who is a quarry
operator by tradition and whose livelihood depended
entirely on quarrying of ordinary building stones, shall
be accepted with rupees one thousand as the security
deposit per acre and rupees five hundred as application
fee:
Sl. Period of delay Amount of penalty
No
1. Upto one month 10% of the existing
annual dead rent
subject to a minimum of
Rs.2000.00
2. Upto two months 15% of the existing
annual dead rent
subject to a minimum of
Rs.3000.00
3. More than 2 months 25% of the existing
but before expiry of annual dead rent
lease subject to a minimum of
Rs.4000.00
Provided that any renewal applications received after
expiry of the above period shall be rejected.
[(2-A) If application for renewal of a quarrying lease
made on or before the expiry of the lease, is not
disposed of by the Competent Authority before such
expiry, the period of lease shall be deemed to have
been extended [Only for a period not exceeding one
year from the date of expiry of the lease held and [the
deemed extension] shall be treated as lapsed from
thereafter the lessee shall stop from continuing the
quarry activities]
[Provided that in case of leaseholders who are in the
deemed extension period of the leases before 16-12-
2013, they shall also deemed to be under extended
period of not exceeding one year from 16-12-2013 and
thereafter they shall stop the quarrying activity
forthwith.]
[(2-B) The grant of quarrying lease to quarry ordinary
sand shall be in accordance with the provisions of the
Chapter IV-B [and Chapter II-A] of the rules.]
(3) Application received under sub-rule (1) and (2) shall
be acknowledged in Form-A."
9. In terms of Sub-rule(2) of Rule 21 of the 1994 Rules,
every application for renewal of a lease to quarry non-specified
minor mineral, is required to be filed on or before ninety days
before expiry of the lease. However, the delay in filing the
application for renewal of the lease can be condoned on
payment of penalty, provided that it is made before the expiry
of the lease.
10. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the term of the lease expired on 30.12.2013 since it was
granted with effect from 30.12.2003. However, we find no merit
in the said contention. A copy of the lease deed is placed on
- 10 -
record. It expressly provides that it is valid for a term of ten
years with effect from 30.12.2003. It is also material to note
that the said lease was granted pursuant to the order passed
by the Revisional Authority allowing the original lessee's
application for renewal of the lease, which was granted on
30.12.1998 for five years. The said period of lease expired on
29.12.2003 and therefore was renewed for a further term from
30.12.2003. The contention that the first day of the lease, that
is 30.12.2003, is required to be excluded from the term of the
lease, is unsustainable as the term of initial lease, which was
granted on 30.12.1998, expired on 29.12.2003. Therefore, the
renewal term would commence on 30.12.2003. The term of ten
years would expire on 29.12.2013. If the petitioner's contention
that the first day of the lease, that is 30.12.2003, is required to
be excluded, is accepted; there would be a gap of one day
between the expiry of the earlier lease and its renewal. It is
equally erroneous to suggest that the term of the lease would
expire on 30.12.2013 as that would imply, the term of the lease
was ten years and one day.
11. Since the term of the lease expired on 29.12.2013, the
period of ninety days within which the application for renewal of
the lease was required to be made, would necessarily have to
- 11 -
be reckoned from midnight on 29.12.2013. Since ninety days
have to be calculated backwards from the end of the term of
the lease, the starting point for calculating the said period
would be from 12.00 AM on 29.12.2013, being the date of
expiry of the said licence.
12. The petitioner relied upon a decision of the Division
Bench of this Court in M/s. Robo Silicon Limited v. State of
Karnataka and others [W.P.No.28148/2019] in support of his
contention. In that case, the court held that the date on which
the licence was to be expire was required to be excluded by
virtue of Section 9 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899
[the 1899 Act], which is pari materia Section 9 of the 1897 Act
[General Clauses Act, 1897]. In that case, the licence for a
stone crusher - which was granted to the petitioner under the
Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 - expired
on 31.03.2019. The petitioner was required to make an
application "three months before the expiry of the licence". The
petitioner had made an application on 01.01.2019. The
question thus arose, whether the application was made three
months before the expiry of the licence. In the aforesaid
context, this Court held as under:
- 12 -
"8. As far as the first submission is concerned, going
by sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act of
2011, the period of three months has to be reckoned
in backward direction from the date of expiry of the
licence. There was one argument canvassed that the
date of expiry of the licence will have to be treated as
1st April 2019 inasmuch as till the mid night of 31st
March 2019, it cannot be said that the licence has
expired.
The said argument does not appeal to us for the
simple reason that the date of expiry of licence will
have to be the last day of the subsistence of the
licence. Therefore, the said date in the facts of the
case will have to be necessarily 31st March 2019.
Thus, the period of three months has to be calculated
in backward direction from 31st March 2019. In this
context, the provisions of Section 9 of the said Act of
1899 are very relevant. Section 9 of the said Act of
1899 reads thus:
"9. Commencement and termination of time.─(1) In
any Mysore Act or Karnataka Act made after the
commencement of this Act, it shall be sufficient, for
the purpose of excluding the first in a series of days
or any other period of time, to use the word "from",
and, for the purpose of including the last in a series
of days or any other period of time, to use the word
"to".
(2) This section applies also to all enactments made
after the Third day of January, 1868."-
9. The provision of Section 9 of the said Act of 1899
does refer to the word 'from' and the word 'to'. On
plain reading of sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the
said Act of 1899, to make the provision applicable, it
is not necessary that the statute must use the word
"from" and the word "to". Sub-section (1) of Section 9
of the said Act of 1899 has been incorporated for the
purpose of excluding the first in a series of days and
for the purpose of including the last in a series of
days. The word "from" will have to be read into last
part of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act,
2011. For computing the period of three months, the
starting point is the date of expiry of licence and it is
from the said date in the backward direction that the
- 13 -
period of three months will have to be counted.
Hence, in view of Section 9(1) of the said Act of
1899, benefit will have to be given to the applicant by
excluding 31st March 2019 and therefore, the
computation of period of three months will have to be
made from 1st April 2019 and the period of three
months will expire on 2nd January 2019. Hence, the
application filed on 1st January 2019 will have to be
held as filed within the time frame provided in sub-
section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act of 2011."
13. The aforesaid reasoning may be considered in
determining the period for making an application under Rule 21
of the 1994 Rules. As noted above, in terms of Sub-rule (2) of
Rule 21 of the Rules, 1994, the said application is required to
be made "on or before ninety days before the expiry of the
lease". This period of ninety days will include 29.12.2013,
which was the last date of the term of the lease as explained by
the Court in M/s.Robo Silicon Limited (supra). The period of
ninety days cannot be calculated by concluding the last date of
the lease. Therefore, 29.12.2013 would be the first day of the
period of ninety days within which the application for renewal
was required to be made. Thus, the application for renewal was
required to be made on 01.10.2013 or prior to the said date.
This is because if 29.12.2013 is considered as the first day,
01.10.2013 would be the 90th day before expiry of the lease.
And, the application could be made on or before ninety days
before expiry of the lease.
- 14 -
14. The petitioner had not made an application within the
period as stipulated under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 of the 1994
Rules. However, the petitioner was entitled to make a delayed
application on payment of penalty. The tabular statement as
set out in the second proviso of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 of the
1994 Rules provided the amount of penalty. The maximum
penalty as stipulated is 25% of the fee as payable, if the
application for renewal was made after a delay of more than
two months but before expiry of lease.
15. It is necessary to construe the meaning of the expression
"before expiry of the lease" to determine the last day on which
the application for renewal could be made on payment of the
maximum penalty. As the last date of term of the lease was
29.12.2013, the lease would expire at midnight of the said date.
Thus, the petitioner was also entitled to file his application for
renewal during the business hours on 29.12.2013. However,
the said day was a Sunday. Therefore, no application could be
filed on 29.12.2013.
16. Section 10 of the 1899 Act is of some significance in the
given facts. The said Section is set out below:
- 15 -
"10. Computation of time.- Where, by [any Mysore
Act or Karnataka Act] made after the
commencement of this Act, any act or proceeding
is directed or allowed to be done or taken in any
court or office on a certain day or within a
prescribed period, then, if the court or office is
closed on that day or the last day of the prescribed
period, the act or proceeding shall be considered
as done or taken in due time if it is done or taken
on the next day afterwards on which the court or
office is open:
Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to
any act or proceeding to which the [Indian
Limitation Act, 1908] applies."
17. It is clear from the plain language of Section 10 of the
1899 Act that where any act or proceedings is allowed to be
done or taken in any court or office on certain day and if the
court or office is closed on that day, the act shall be considered
as done if it is done on the next day on which the court or office
is open. The last date on which the petitioner could make an
application with penalty was 29.12.2013. Since the same was a
holiday, the petitioner could make the application on the day
following, that is, on 30.12.2013. Thus, the contention that the
petitioner's application for renewal was made after expiry of the
said period, is unsustainable.
18. The next question to be examined whether the
petitioner's revision application is liable to be dismissed under
Sub-rule (1) of Rule 53 of the 1994 Rules. The translated copy
- 16 -
of the impugned order indicates that the delay in filing the
revision application was allowed. However, it appears that the
English translation of the impugned order is not correct. The
revision application was also rejected on the ground that there
was a delay of more than six years in filing the revision
application.
19. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 53 of the Rules, 1994 permits the
revision application to be made within a period of ninety days
from the date of communication of the order dated 18.01.2014.
It is the petitioner's case that the rejection order dated
18.01.2014 was not communicated to him. He had, thereafter,
obtained a copy of the same by making an application under
the RTI Act. The impugned order does not indicate that the
said issue was considered by the Revisional Authority. There is
also no material on record to establish that the order of
rejection was communicated to the petitioner.
20. The petitioner has also produced his application for
renewal which indicates that it was accompanied by two
demand drafts [D.D.No.484562 dated 28.12.2013 for a sum of
`2,000/- and D.D.No.48563 dated 28.12.2013 for a sum of
`2,500/-]. Thus, prima facie, it appears that the petitioner had
- 17 -
also furnished the penalty along with his application for
renewal.
21. In view of the above, we consider it apposite to set aside
the impugned order and remand the matter to the Revisional
Authority to consider it afresh bearing in mind the aforesaid
observations.
22. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
KPS
