2023 Rule Change Does Not Revive Quarry Lease Application Rejected Before 2016 Amendment, Karnataka HC Says

In brief

The question

Whether Rule 8B, as substituted in 2023, made the petitioner’s lease application eligible for reconsideration although it had been rejected before the 2016 amendment came into force

The court held

The Court answered the first issue in the negative and held that the petitioner’s rejected application was not revived by the 2023 substitution of Rule 8B.

It also directed

It found no basis for mandamus directing the authorities to reconsider the application, dismissed the writ petition, and granted no relief

01Facts

The petitioner applied on 10 June 2014 for a quarry lease to extract building stone from five acres in Sy. No. 185, Marle Village.

¶ 2

The Senior Geologist rejected the application on 21 April 2016 because the proposed area overlapped with an existing quarry lease and another applicant’s area

¶ 3

The petitioner’s revision petition, filed on 11 January 2019, was dismissed on 4 January 2021 as time-barred; the Revisional Authority also observed that the application did not fall within the exceptions under Rule 8B as amended in 2016

¶ 4–5

After Rule 8B was substituted in 2023, the petitioner made representations seeking reconsideration of his application.

¶ 6

He then sought a writ directing the authorities to consider those representations and the lease application under the amended rule

¶ 8

02Issues

i.Whether Rule 8B, as substituted in 2023, made the petitioner’s lease application eligible for reconsideration although it had been rejected before the 2016 amendment came into force

¶ 14–15

ii.Whether the petitioner was entitled to a mandamus directing the authorities to consider his representations and lease application

¶ 1, 18

03Law Applied

Under Rule 8B(1), as substituted by the 2016 amendment, applications received and pending before that amendment came into force on 12 August 2016 became ineligible, subject to specified exceptions under Rule 8B(2).

¶ 11–12

Rule 8B(1), as substituted in 2023 with effect from 17 March 2023, made eligible applications received before the 2016 amendment; its provisos address applications that were pending and the status of required no-objection certificates and reports.

¶ 14–15

Rule 8B(2) provides for consideration and disposal of such applications under the Rules.

¶ 14–15

A revision under Rule 53(1) had to be filed within the prescribed 60-day period from communication of the challenged order

¶ 16

04Reasoning

The Court held that the 2023 amendment revived consideration of applications rendered ineligible by the 2016 amendment, but did not revive the petitioner’s application because it had already been rejected on 21 April 2016 and was therefore not pending when the 2016 amendment took effect

¶ 13, 15

The Revisional Authority’s observations about the 2016 version of Rule 8B did not establish that the application remained live; the revision had been rejected at the outset as delayed

¶ 16–17

As the application had been rejected before the relevant amendment and the 2023 rule did not restore it, there was no basis for directing its reconsideration

¶ 18

05Holding

The Court answered the first issue in the negative and held that the petitioner’s rejected application was not revived by the 2023 substitution of Rule 8B.

¶ 18–19

It found no basis for mandamus directing the authorities to reconsider the application, dismissed the writ petition, and granted no relief

¶ 18–19

LawLens.Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF