Sri.M.Ramakrishna v. State of Karnataka

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 30454 OF 2026 (GM-MM-S) BETWEEN:

¶1SRI M. RAMAKRISHNA SON OF LATE MUDHAYA AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. S.800 BEHIND KALAMMA TEMPLE STREET SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 607 …PETITIONER (BY SRI K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI AVINASH GOWDA G.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

¶1STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (MINES) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VIKAS SOUDHA, 1ST FLOOR BENGALURU – 560 001

¶2THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY 49, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE – 560 001

by VEERENDRA KUMAR K M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶3THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX MANDHYA – 571 401

¶4THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVANA NO.CA4/C, VIVEKANANDA BADAVANE MANDYA – 571 402

¶5THE STATE LEVEL DAM SAFETY COMMITTEE KRISHNARAJA SAGARA DAM REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN MANDHYA – 571 607 …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 OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO EXTEND THE QUARRY LEASE OF THE PETITIONER WITH RESPECT TO QUARRY LEASE BEARING NO.438 SITUATED IN SURVEY NO.18, NEELANAKOPPALU VILLAGE, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT, TOTALLY MEASURING 3 ACRES AS PER PROVISIONS OF RULE 8-A (1-a) OF THE KARNATAKA MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES, 1994 & 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 MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶1The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that directions be issued to the respondents to extend the quarry lease bearing No.438 situated in Survey No.18, Neelanakoppalu village, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District extending over an area of 3 acres [the subject land], as per the provisions of Rule 8-A(1-a) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 [KMMC Rules].

¶2The petitioner also impugns the endorsement dated

01.01.2026 issued by the Senior Geologist, Department of Mines and Geology [DMG], whereby the petitioner was directed to suspend its mining activities, since the quarry lease fell within the distance of 20 kilometers radius from Krishnarajasagara [KRS] Dam in Mandya District.

¶3The petitioner holds quarry lease over the subject land for extraction of building stone, which involves blasting. Following the interim orders passed by this Court dated 08.01.2024 in W.P.No.19835/2023 (GM-MM-S) captioned C.G.Kumar v. State of Karnataka and others, the mining activities within 20 kilometers radius of KRS Dam was temporarily suspended for the safety of the KRS Dam. The State Committee on Dam Safety [SCDS] in its meeting on 26.11.2024 allowed crushing operation to resume conditionally, but strictly banned any blasting activities within 20kms radius of KRS Dam. Since the quarry lease of the petitioner falls within the restricted 20kms radius and involves blasting, the authority by the impugned endorsement have declined the permission to resume mining activity and have communicated that further action regarding mining operation under this lease would be taken subject to the final decision of this Court in W.P.No.19835/2023 (supra).

¶4Mr. Phanindra K.N., learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner referred to the minutes of the meeting of the District Task Force Committee (Mines) and District Stone Crushing Units Licensing and Regulation Authority, which indicates that the

petitioner's quarry lease is situated at a distance of 19.86kms from a particular point of the KRS Dam. He submits that since the said distance has been measured from the periphery of the dam, the bulk of the leased area falls outside the 20km radius. Therefore, the direction to suspend mining activities ought to be lifted.

¶5We note that the controversy in the present petition is two fold. First, whether the petitioner would be entitled to deemed extension of the lease; and second, whether the endorsement suspending the mining activity is required to be quashed.

¶6It is apparent that the threshold question to be examined is, whether the mining activity is permissible over the leased area. If it is found that the mining activity is not permissible, there would be no point in extension of the mining lease, which has since expired. There is no dispute that a least part of the leased area falls within the 20km radius of the KRS Dam.

¶7The contention that since only a part of the leased area falls within the said distance, mining should be permitted in the other area, is unpersuasive. The mining activity has been suspended on account of safety concerns. Obviously the importance of which

cannot be understated. It would not be apposite for this Court to tweak the said distance or fine tune the same considering the implications of the risks involved.

¶8We note that the final decision has not been rendered by this Court in W.P.No.19835/2023 and the mining activity has been suspended pursuant to an interim order. The endorsement also clearly states that the suspension of the mining activity would be subject to the final order that may be passed by this Court in the aforesaid petition.

¶9Thus, denial of permission to carryout any mining activity in the leased area is subject to the final orders that may be passed by this Court in W.P.No.19835/2023 (supra).

¶10The petitioner's request for lifting of the suspension order as well as its entitlement, if any, for extension of the lease would be considered, subject to the final order in the said writ petition.

¶11In this view, we dispose of the present petition by directing that if it is found that the mining activity is permissible, the concerned authority shall examine the petitioner's case for deemed extension and pass an appropriate order at the relevant stage.

¶12The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

KMV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5