M/S GOUTHAM MINES vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58192-DB
WP No. 32224 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010705192026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 32224 OF 2026 (GM-MM-S)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S GOUTHAM MINES
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER
THE PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 5/31-2
PADEKALLU KOMBUJE
KANYANA VILLAGE
BANTWAL – 574 279
KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
MR L. NAGAMURALI
…PETITIONER
Digitally
signed by K
P SWETHA
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
(BY SRI JAYKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI AYUSHI GOYAL.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVANA
RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU – 560 001
REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58192-DB
WP No. 32224 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010705192026
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
ST
1 FLOOR, JUGAL TOWERS
KRR ROAD, MALLIKATTE KADRI
MANGALURU – 575 001
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT
3. SENIOR GEOLOGIST
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
GORUND FLOOR, PRAJASUDHA LAYOUT
PADIL - MANAGLORE – 575 007
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS OF
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.09.2026 ISSUED BY
RESPONDENT No.3 (ANNEXURE-N), CANCELLING THE MINING
LEASE GRANTED TO THE PETITIONER VIDE LEASE No. DSKNS-441
DATED 31.05.2023 (ANNEXURE-E) & ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an
order dated 21.09.2026 issued by respondent No.3 canceling the
mining lease (No.DSKNS-441) dated 31.05.2023. The petitioner
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58192-DB
WP No. 32224 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010705192026
also prays that direction be issued to respondent No.3 to unlock the
ILMS portal and to enable the petitioner to generate permits for
transportation of laterite.
2. The petitioner had applied for a mining lease for quarrying
laterite stone from land measuring 2 acres falling in Survey Nos.
435/3 and 435/5 of Kanyana Village, Bantwal Taluk, Dakshina
Karnataka District, Karnataka [ Subject Land ]. The petitioner
claims that it secured the necessary permissions for quarrying on
the subject land, including the No Objection Certificates [ NOC ] from
the Forest Department and the Revenue Department. Thereafter,
on 05.01.2023, the petitioner submitted a detailed project report as
required under the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules,
1994 [ KMMC Rules ].
3. The State Level Impact Assessment Authority, Karnataka,
accorded the Environmental Clearance vide communication dated
23.03.2023. After compliance with all necessary conditions, the
State Government granted a quarry lease/license bearing
No.DSKNS 441 on 31.05.2023, for extraction of laterite from the
subject land.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58192-DB
WP No. 32224 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010705192026
4. The petitioner carried on the mining activities during the
period and thereafter and paid royalty to the extent of
` 2,54,52,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Fifty Four Lakhs and Fifty Two
Thousand only) in respect of laterite stone extracted from the
subject land.
5. The petitioner states that the respondents abruptly blocked
the ILMS portal on 26.03.2026, thereby disabling the petitioner
from generating permits for transportation of the extracted mineral.
The petitioner made a representation against the said action. But
the same was neither considered nor acted upon. Since the issue
remained unresolved, the petitioner filed a writ petition being
inter alia
W.P.No.16236/2026, , praying that directions be issued for
permitting the petitioner to generate permits for facilitating the
transportation of laterite. This Court disposed of the said petition,
along with other similar petitions, by a common order dated
28.07.2026.
6. The controversy in the said petitions concerned whether the
mineral available was a major mineral. It was believed that the
aluminous content (AI O content) of the mineral available at the
2 3
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58192-DB
WP No. 32224 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010705192026
mines was more than 20%. This exceeded the threshold value of
the mineral as defined under Rule 3(e) of the Minerals (Evidence of
Mineral Contents) Rules, 2015. Consequently, the laterite available
would qualify as bauxite, which is a major mineral. Concededly,
under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)
Act,1957, no mining lease in respect of a major mineral could be
granted without the approval of the Central Government.
7. The mining lease in question was granted to the petitioner
under the belief that the mineral available was laterite (which was a
minor mineral) and not bauxite. In view of the above, the writ
petition filed by the petitioner, as well as other petitioners, was
disposed of by directing the State to take an informed decision on
whether the mineral available was laterite or bauxite. The court
also noted that the State had already drawn samples from the
quarry leases granted to the petitioner and other similarly situated
persons. Analysis of the samples established that the aluminous
content exceeded the threshold value. This finding implies that the
State had granted the licence to the petitioner without authority.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58192-DB
WP No. 32224 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010705192026
8. In view of the above, since the said lease was granted
without authority, it was liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the
State Government cancelled the said lease/licence.
9. Mr. Jayakumar S. Patil, the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner submitted that the samples had been
drawn without participation of the petitioner and the entire exercise
has been conducted without involving the petitioner. However, the
petitioner is unable to controvert the fact that the chemical analysis
of the samples drawn had revealed that the aluminous content
(AI 2 O 3 content) was above the threshold value. We have also
examined the averments made in the petition. However, we do not
find any serious challenge to the said finding.
10. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that the
petitioner had applied for the licence pursuant to a notice inviting
applications issued by the State. He submitted that the State had
examined the available mineral prior to grant of the licence;
therefore, the State would be precluded from cancelling the same.
11. We find no merit in the said contention. It is apparent that the
State has made a mistake in considering the mineral available at
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58192-DB
WP No. 32224 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010705192026
the mining site as a minor mineral. Since the said assumption is
now found to be erroneous, it is evident that the exercise of
granting the lease/licence was clearly without authority of law.
Undisputedly, the approval of the Central Government for any
lease/licence in respect of a major mineral is a mandatory
requirement.
12. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
13. We clarify that this order would not preclude the petitioner
from availing its other remedies, if any, in accordance with law. The
petitioner is also not precluded from making an appropriate
representation to the concerned authorities for disposal of the
mineral already quarried.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(K.S. HEMALEKHA)
JUDGE
KPS
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6