AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Bopanna, J.—The third Respondent in W.P. No. 43752/2004 (GM MM/S) is before us in this appeal, assailing the order dated 16.06.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge. By the said order, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 14.10.2004 (Annexure-J) passed by the Revisional Authority in favour of the Appellant herein.
Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the appeal papers.
To determine as to whether the Appellant had any exclusive right for consideration of his application seeking renewal of the quarrying lease in the facts of the present case, the admitted facts are to be noticed, which are as follows:
The Appellant had been granted quarrying lease for extracting building stones in an area measuring 28 guntas in Sy. No. 79 of Bandahalli village, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore District. The said lease was for a period of five years from 18.01.1994 to 17.01.1999. Prior to the expiry of the lease period, the Appellant did not file an application seeking renewal of the lease. In that view of the matter, the competent authority issued a notification on 08.09.2000 as provided under Rule 8-A of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ''KMMC Rules'' for short) notifying that the area in question was available for grant. The third Respondent herein therefore filed an application dated 22.07.2003 seeking grant of quarrying lease for the said area. Before the said application could receive consideration by the authorities, the Appellant herein filed an application dated 23.10.2003 seeking renewal of the lease, which he held earlier. However, the said application was rejected as it was not filed before the expiry of lease and the arrears was not paid. The Appellant herein filed a revision petition against the said order which came to be allowed and remitted to the competent authority with a direction to reconsider the said renewal application along with the application filed by the third Respondent herein. In the meanwhile, the application of the third Respondent herein was already considered and the lease was notified in his favour. The Appellant herein questioned the same in revision filed before the Revisional Authority, which came to be allowed by order dated 30.10.2004, whereby the notification dated 03.07.2004 granting lease in favour of the third Respondent herein was set aside. The said order was assailed by the third Respondent herein in the writ petition.
In the above noticed admitted facts, it is also not in dispute that Rule 8-A of the KMMC Rules provides for notifying the availability of the area for grant. However, the solitary contention on behalf of the Appellant is that the first proviso to the said Rule grants a right for renewal in favour of the Appellant herein as he was a previous lease holder and had made an application seeking renewal. The proviso relied on, reads as hereunder,
Provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to renewal of a quarrying lease in favour of the original lessee or his legal heirs.
In order to consider the validity of the right claimed by the Appellant herein by placing reliance on the above noticed proviso, it would be necessary for us to determine at the outset as to what would be a valid renewal application, because, only if the Appellant had made a valid renewal, application, the right for consideration would arise. In this regard, the application in any event should have been made prior to the availability for grant being notified on 08.09.2000 whereunder it was thrown open to all interested Applicants seeking grant of quarrying, lease.
The facts of the instant case noticed above would clearly disclose that the lease in favour of the Appellant for the area in question was for the period 18.01.1994 to 17.01.1999. Despite the same, the renewal application was neither filed before the expiry of lease nor prior to being notified under Rule 8-A of the KMMC Rules. Admittedly, the renewal application was filed on 23.10.2003. Though, the time stipulation was not in force at that point when the lease came to an end, the application in any event was after three years from the date of the notification published under Rule 8-A of the KMMC Rules.
Therefore, the said application for renewal was long after the event, inasmuch as, even before the Appellant made his application for renewal, the area had been notified on 03.09.2000, as an area available for grant and the third Respondent herein had already applied on 22.07.2003. The Appellant therefore cannot claim benefit of the first proviso to Rule 8-A of the KMMC Rules as contended. The first Respondent was accordingly, not justified in interfering with the lease notified in favour of the third Respondent herein. The learned Single Judge was therefore justified in allowing the petition.
In view of the above, we see no merit in this appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.