Karnataka High Court
WP/36246/2025 of SMT H N PUNYA Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA on 29 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010766432025 NC: 2026:KHC:54156-DB WP No. 36246 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH 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. 36246 OF 2025 (GM-MM_S)
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH 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. 36246 OF 2025 (GM-MM_S)
BETWEEN:
1.
SMT. H N PUNYA,
W/O LATE PRASANNA B P,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
2.
SRI HIMNISH P GOWDA,
S/O LATE PRASANNA B P,
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS,
SINCE PETITIONER NO.2 IS MINOR,
REP. BY NATURAL GUARDIAN
MOTHER PETITIONER NO.1.
BOTH PETITIONERS ARE
R/AT No.03, 1ST FLOOR,
KAPIL ROAD, SUBHRAMANYA NAGARA,
MYSURU 570 017.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. GANAPATI BHAT VAJRALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
Digitally signed
by C K LATHA
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
2.
THE REGIONAL CONTROLLER,
OF MINES AND OIC (SZ)
NO. 29, INDUSTRIAL SUB-URB,
2ND STAGE, GORAGUNTEPALYA,
TUMKUR ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 022.
3.
THE DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY,
KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU – 577 001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R1 AND R3; SRI. B M KUSHALAPPA, CGC FOR R2.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT
OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION TO 3RD RESPONDENT TO TRANSFER THE MINING
LEASE IN THE NAME OF PETITIONERS AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The petitioners have filed the present petition inter alia praying that directions be issued to respondent No.3 to transfer the mining lease in their name.
HC-KAR
2. Petitioner No.1 and her husband were both partners of a firm named M/S Someshwara Magnasite Minerals Limited [the firm]. The firm had applied for grant of a mining lease over an area of 11.36 acres at Banavadi Village, H.D.Kote Taluk, Mysuru District. The mining plan submitted by the husband of petitioner No.1 (B.P.Prasanna) on behalf of the firm was approved on 20.04.2006. Thereafter, a mining lease [2530] was granted in favour of the firm, and a lease deed dated 23.11.2006 was executed for a period of 20 years. It is stated that petitioner No.1 and her husband continued to carry on the mining operations under the name and style of the firm. Mr. B.P.Prasanna expired on 29.11.2018. Consequent upon his death, petitioner No.1 made a representation dated 10.01.2019 seeking transfer of the mining lease in her name. The petitioners have filed the present petition being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities.
3. The learned Additional Government Advocate referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohammad Laiquiddin and
HC-KAR
Another vs Kamala Devi Misra (Dead) by LRs and Others1 and on the strength of the said decision contended that in a case where a partnership firm consists of only two partners, and one of the partners expire, the firm will stand dissolved. She submits that in the present case as well, the firm stood dissolved upon the death of B.P.Prasanna so as the mining lease.
4. Although there is some controversy whether the firm could continue by induction of other partners, as the partnership deed expressly provided for the same, however, it is not necessary for this court to examine this question in the present proceedings. We say so because petitioner No.1 has made a representation for transfer of the mining lease in her name and there is no dispute that she is the surviving partner of the firm as well as an heir to the deceased partner. If a firm is dissolved, the assets of the firm would necessarily fall to the share of the partners and in case one of the partners has expired, his share would fall to his legal heirs.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the legal heirs of the deceased B.P.Prasanna have consented to 1 (2010) 2 SCC 407
HC-KAR
transfer the mining lease in favour of his widow, namely, petitioner No.1.
6. Considering the above, we direct respondent No.3 to examine the petitioners representation as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four weeks from date. In the event, the authorities are of the view that the lease cannot be transferred in favour of petitioner No.1, a reasoned order shall be passed after affording the petitioners an opportunity of being heard.
7. All rights and contentions of the petitioners are reserved.
Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE CKL List No.: 2 Sl No.: 23