A quarry lease’s deemed extension must await a finding that mining is permissible.

The petitioner held a quarry lease for extraction of building stone, involving blasting, over three acres in Survey No. 18, Neelanakoppalu Village.

The lease area was within 20 kilometres of the Krishnarajasagara (KRS) Dam.

The Senior Geologist issued an endorsement dated 1 January 2026 directing suspension of the petitioner’s mining activities.

The petitioner challenged that endorsement and sought deemed extension of the lease under Rule 8-A(1-a) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994.

The petitioner argued that only part of the leased area fell within the restricted radius.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to deemed extension of the quarry lease under Rule 8-A(1-a) of the KMMC Rules, 1994.

2. Whether the endorsement suspending mining activity on the leased area should be quashed or the suspension lifted.

Rule 8-A(1-a) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, was the basis of the petitioner’s claim for deemed lease extension.

The Court considered the interim order in C.G. Kumar v. State of Karnataka and Others, under which mining activities within 20 kilometres of the KRS Dam had been suspended pending consideration of dam-safety concerns.

It also noted the State Committee on Dam Safety’s conditional permission for crushing operations, while maintaining a prohibition on blasting within that radius.

The Court treated the safety restriction as operative unless and until varied by the final order in C.G. Kumar; it did not decide the petitioner’s substantive entitlement to lease extension.

The Court treated the permissibility of mining as the threshold question: if mining could not lawfully proceed on the leased area, there would be no purpose in deciding whether the expired lease should be extended.

Because at least part of the lease area was within the 20-kilometre restricted radius, the Court rejected the argument that mining should be allowed on the portion outside it.

It declined to alter or refine the safety boundary given the risks involved.

As the suspension rested on an interim order and the related writ petition remained pending, both the suspension issue and the extension claim were left subject to that proceeding’s final outcome.

It directed that, if mining is found permissible under the final order in C.G. Kumar, the competent authority must then examine the petitioner’s case for deemed extension and pass an appropriate order at the relevant stage.