High CourtsDivision Bench(2026) 09 KAR CK 2656

Sri R.N. Krishna Priyanth vs State Of Karnataka & Ors.

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru Bench · Decided on 18 September 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vibhu Bakhru, C.J · K.S. Hemalekha, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 37195 of 2025 (GM-MM_S)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 280 words

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1.

The learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents.

2.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that the respondents be directed to consider his application dated 31.03.2023 for grant of quarry lease.

3.

The petitioner states that he has submitted the aforesaid application seeking a licence to extract building stone over an extent of 8 acres 12 guntas out of the total extent of lands comprised in Survey No.192, Madahalli Village, Gundulpet Taluk, Chamarajanagar District. Pursuant to the said application, a joint inspection was conducted on 17.05.2024 by the officials of the Revenue Department, the Village Authorities and the officials of the Department of Mines and Geology. It is stated that while the petitioner's application continues to be pending, another applicant (Sri S. Nandagopal), who had applied for a lease/license for a part of the lands falling in the very Survey No.192, was issued a quarry licence on 27.07.2023 and has commenced quarry operations.

4.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that although the petitioner and Sri S. Nandagopal had made the application at almost the same time, while Sri Nandagopal's application has been processed and a quarry licence has been granted to him. However, the petitioner is still awaiting action in respect of his application.

5.

In view of the averments made in the present petition, we consider it apposite to direct the concerned authorities to consider and dispose of the petitioner's application seeking grant of quarry lease as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eight weeks from date.

6.

The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.