WP/30454/2026 of SRI.M.RAMAKRISHNA Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA on 30 September 2026

ORAL ORDER

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

1. The 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].

2. The 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.

HC-KAR

3. The 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).

4. Mr. 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

HC-KAR

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.

5. We 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.

6. It 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.

7. The 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

HC-KAR

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.

8. We 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.

9. Thus, 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).

10. The 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.

11. In 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.

HC-KAR

12. The 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