SRI.D. YAMUNAPPA V. UNION OF INDIA

WP/30593/2018

AI Insights

The case involves Sri D. Yamunappa, the petitioner, who challenged the cancellation of his mining lease renewal by the Director of the Department of Mines and Geology through a writ petition. The lease was initially granted on December 7, 1995, and was subject to renewal. The cancellation order was issued on March 12, 2013, and a subsequent revision petition was dismissed on February 16, 2015. The petitioner filed the writ petition on July 16, 2018, which the court found to be delayed by over three years from the dismissal of the revision petition and over a year from the issuance of an auction notification by the state government. The court rejected the petitioner's explanations for the delay, including his illness and financial status, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 678177 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2020
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K A ARIGA; I POOJARY; BASAVARAJ SAPPANAVAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SATISH DODDAMANI
• Keywords: Affidavit; Delay; Income-tax Clearance Certificate; Medical certificate; Mining lease; Coronary artery disease

Judgement Text

" - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S. SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO.30593/2018 (GM-MM-S) BETWEEN: SRI D YAMUNAPPA S/O SRI DURGAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/OF A.K.COLONY, HARIHAR TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER SRI M.R.C. CHOUHAN S/O SRI L RUPA NAIK AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.439/1, SRI SAI NIVAS 12TH CROSS, BHUVANESHWARINAGAR HEBBAL KEMPAPURA BANGALORE-560 024 …PETITIONER (BY SRI SATISH M. DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF MINES SHASTRI BHAVAN, 1ST FLOOR DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD MARG NEW DELHI 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE VIKASA SOUDHA, 1ST FLOOR - 2 - DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 3. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY 5TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-CUM- CHAIRMAN OF THE DIST. SAND COMMITTEE DAVANAGERE DISTRICT DAVANAGERE-577 001 5. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST OFFICE OF THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST OPPOSITE TO ANJENEYA TEMPLE VIDYANAGAR DAVANAGERE DISTRICT DAVANAGERE-577 001 6. SRI ASHOK MALAGI MANI MAJOR, R/AT NO.62, 4TH CROSS GANGADHARANAGAR, SETTLEMENT HUBLI-20 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K A ARIGA, CGC FOR R-1; SRI I THARANATH POOJARY, AGA FOR R-2 TO 5; SRI BASAVARAJ S SAPPANAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY DATED 12TH MARCH 2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. A detailed order was passed on 5th February 2020 dealing with the question of delay. There were two grounds urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner for explaining the delay. The first ground was sickness of the petitioner and the second one was that the petitioner is very poor. As far as the first ground of sickness is concerned, it already stands rejected by the order dated 5th February 2020. In terms of the directions of this Court, the petitioner has filed an affidavit dated 11th March 2020. In the said affidavit, all that the petitioner has stated is that he is not assessed to Income- Tax and he is producing the Income Tax Clearance Certificate for the year 2004-2005 showing that he was not assessed to Income-Tax. The said certificate annexed to the affidavit is of 17th November 2004. 3. To understand the controversy of delay, it may be necessary to reproduce paragraphs 1 and 2 of the order dated 5th February 2020 which read thus: “On 7th December, 1995, a mining lease was granted to the petitioner for a period of ten years. The petitioner has - 4 - challenged an order dated 12th March, 2013 by way of prayer clause (a). By the said order, a grant notification of 16th April, 2009 by which the lease was ordered to be renewed, was cancelled. Prayer clause (b) is for challenging the order of the revisional authority passed on 16th February, 2015 by which the revision petition against the order dated 12th March, 2013 was dismissed. Thereafter, e-tender notification was issued on 15th December, 2016 and the present petition has been filed on 16th July, 2018. 2. Thus, the cause of action for filing the petition arose on 16th February, 2015 when the revision application preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. Thus, the petition is filed 3 years and 5 months after the order of the revisional authority on 15th December, 2016. A consequential action by the State Government of issuing an auction notification was taken. Even thereafter, the petitioner waited for one year and seven months.” 4. It is stated in the affidavit of 11th March 2020 that on 7th December 1995, a mining lease was granted to the petitioner for a period of ten years. By the first impugned order dated 12th March 2013, the renewal of the said mining lease was cancelled. Therefore, it is impossible to accept the contention that the petitioner is poor which prevented him from adopting the legal remedy. The petitioner is in the mining business since 1995. - 5 - 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies upon the Medical Certificate annexed to the affidavit dated 11th March 2020. Firstly, the Medical Certificate was issued on 9th March 2020. It is generally stated in the said certificate that the petitioner is suffering from coronary artery disease and needs complete bed rest. This certificate of 9th March 2020 is not at all relevant for explaining the delay. Hence, this is a case where the petition suffers from gross and unexplained delay. The petition is not filed by a layman, but is filed by a person in whose favour a mining lease was granted in the year 1995. Hence, we decline to entertain this petition only on the ground of delay. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected. Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE SN "