A major-mineral lease granted without Central Government approval is unauthorized.

The petitioner held a quarry lease granted on 31 May 2023 to extract laterite from land in Kanyana Village, Karnataka, after obtaining the stated permissions and environmental clearance.

It paid royalty on the mineral extracted.

In March 2026, the respondents blocked the ILMS portal, preventing the petitioner from generating transport permits.

In earlier proceedings, the High Court directed the State to decide whether the mineral was laterite or bauxite; sample analysis showed that its alumina content exceeded the threshold under Rule 3(e) of the Minerals (Evidence of Mineral Contents) Rules, 2015.

The State subsequently cancelled the lease, and the petitioner challenged that cancellation, contending that the samples were taken without its participation and that the State had previously examined the mineral before granting the lease.

Under Rule 3(e) of the Minerals (Evidence of Mineral Contents) Rules, 2015, the mineral’s classification turns on whether its alumina content exceeds the prescribed threshold.

The Court stated that, under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, a mining lease for a major mineral requires Central Government approval.

The KMMC Rules, 1994, governed the petitioner’s application and project documentation.

The Court applied the principle that a lease granted on the erroneous assumption that the mineral is minor, when it is in fact major and the required approval is absent, is beyond the State’s authority.

The Court noted that the sample analysis showed alumina content above the applicable threshold, and the petitioner had not made a serious challenge to that finding.

It rejected the petitioner’s objections concerning its absence during sampling and the State’s prior examination: those matters did not overcome the established mineral classification or the mandatory requirement of Central Government approval for a major-mineral lease.

The State’s mistaken classification therefore could not validate a lease granted without authority.

It clarified that the petitioner could pursue any other remedies available in law and could make a representation concerning the mineral already quarried.