Sri. N .R Manigantan v. State of Karnataka

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 2629 OF 2026 (GM-MM-S)

BETWEEN:

¶1SRI. N .R MANIGANTAN S/O SRI. RAMACHANDRAN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 28 86th STREET, 19th AVENUE, ASHOK NAGAR, CHENNAI 600083

…PETITIONER (BY SMT. B.V. VIDYULATHA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

¶1STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, (MSME, MINES AND TEXTILE) VIKASA SOUDHA, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE 560001.

2. DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY

Digitally signed by SRIDEVI S Location: High Court of Karnataka NC:(2026:KHC:9390-DB( WP(No.(2629(of(2026( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001.

¶3DEPUTY DIRECTOR / SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY ZILLA ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, 3rd FLOOR ROOM NO. 316 AND 317 B RACHAIAH ROAD, CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 440.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO FORTHWITH CONSIDER THE PETITIONER'S APPLICATION DATED 21/02/2025 AT ANNEXURE-G TO THE PETITION AND GRANT QUARRYING LICENCE AS SOUGHT FOR THEREIN IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY.NO.238/2 OF KOTHALAWADI VILLAGE AND 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 MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶1Issue notice.

¶2The learned Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents.

¶3The petitioner has filed present petition, inter alia praying that directions be issued to respondents to forthwith consider the petitioner's application for grant of Quarrying License in respect of the land comprised in Survey No.238/2 of Kothalawadi Village.

¶4The petitioner states that he purchased the subject land measuring 2 acres and 13 guntas from the vendor on 16.01.2024. The vendor had applied for a license to conduct quarry operations. In view of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2016, the patta land holders of the old Mysore region were required to obtain a quarrying license. It is stated that Rule 32 of the said Rules is a subject matter of challenge, which is now pending before the Supreme Court. The vendor from whom the

petitioner had purchased the subject land, had applied for a quarrying licence on 13.11.2020. The vendor had also submitted a quarrying plan, which was approved on 06.04.2021 for a period of five years. Additionally, the said vendor had also secured Environment Clearance from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, for quarrying 'black granite'. The petitioner had also filed an application dated 21.02.2025 for seeking grant of a quarrying license, which is pending consideration.

¶5The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in similar matters where patta land holders of the old Mysore region had challenged the amendment to the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2016, they have been permitted to carry on the quarrying operations by virtue of the interim orders passed by the Supreme Court. It is also pointed out that in such matters, this Court has also extended a similar benefit to landowners. The learned counsel relies on an order dated

09.12.2025 passed in W.P.No.35108 of 2025.

¶6The learned Government Advocate does not dispute that on the principle of parity, the petitioner would also be entitled to similar

orders. He however states that the quarrying plan submitted by the vendor was approved on 06.04.2021 for a period of five years and therefore, the same would expire in less than one and a half months. He submits that the petitioner could not be permitted to carry on quarrying operations without an approved quarrying plan.

¶7We note that the interim orders permitting persons similarly placed as the petitioner, for carrying on quarrying operations are not unconditional. The permission to continue mining operations is subject to, i) Payment of royalty as per the existing notification; ii) the person possessing a quarrying plan; and iii) obtaining environmental clearance.

¶8In view of the above, we direct that the petitioner be permitted to carry on quarrying operations, subject to payment of royalty as specified, and subject to the approved quarrying plan, and all environmental clearances continuing to remain valid till a final decision is rendered in the petitions challenging the validity of Rule 32 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Rules, 1994. .

¶9In the meantime, the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's application for grant of quarrying licence, in accordance with law.

¶10The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation.

Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

KS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 18