WP/38290/2025 of MR. K S SADASHIVAPPA Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 12 August 2026

ORAL ORDER

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

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under: "(i) Issue writ of Mandamus directing the respondent authority to Un-Lock the ILMS to petitioner by considering the representation dated 15.11.2025, vide Annexure-J.

(ii) Pleased to pass any other order or direction as this Hon'ble court feels deem fit under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

HC-KAR

2. The petitioner states that he is the owner of land bearing Sy.No.43/4, to an extent of 1 acre 14 guntas situated at Melur Village, Haradanahalli Hobli, Chamarajanagar District and Taluk [the Subject land]. He claims that after purchasing the subject land, he found black granite deposits therein. Accordingly, he applied for conversion of the subject land for quarrying purposes.

3. It is stated that the subject land was converted and, thereafter, on 17.11.2014, the petitioner applied for quarrying licence under Rule 32 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 [the KMMC Rules].

4. It is the petitioner's case that, thereafter, No Objection Certificates [NOC] were issued by the revenue department and the forest department. The said NOCs were placed before the District Task Force. On 21.10.2015, the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority also issued the environmental clearance and approved the quarrying plans. The petitioner's application for a quarry lease, however, was not processed further in view of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2016. The petitioner states that, subsequently, the KMMC Rules were further amended, requiring even patta holders in the erstwhile

HC-KAR

Mysore region to obtain working permits. The challenge to the said amendment is pending before the Supreme Court and an interim order has been granted therein.

5. In view of the above, the respondent authorities have approved the quarrying plan for the period 2025-26 to 2029-30 and issued the same in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner claims that, in terms of the approved quarrying plan, he is entitled to carry on the quarrying activities, subject to the payment of royalty, compliance with the mining plan, and adherence to the environmental clearance.

6. The petitioner's grievance is that, notwithstanding the approval of the quarrying plan, the Integrated Lease Management System [the ILMS] portal has been locked. Consequently, the petitioner is unable to secure the Mineral Dispatch Permits [the MDP] necessary for dispatch of the minerals in question.

7. The learned Additional Government Advocate, on instructions, submits that the petitioner's representation for unlocking the ILMS portal would be considered in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from date and the decision thereon would be communicated to the petitioner.

HC-KAR

8. In view of the above, we dispose of the petition by directing the concerned authorities to examine the petitioner's representation. In the event the concerned authorities are of the view that the ILMS portal cannot be unlocked, the same shall be communicated to the petitioner, along with the reasons for the said decision, within the aforesaid period. Conversely, if the authorities find that there is no reason to keep the ILMS portal locked, they shall unlock the same.

9. If the decision to keep the ILMS portal locked is not communicated within the aforesaid period, the ILMS portal shall be unlocked immediately after the expiry of the period of two weeks. We are issuing the peremptory directions as the respondents have not set out any reasons as to why the petitioner's request for unlocking the ILMS portal ought not to be acceded to.

Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE AT List No.: 2 Sl No.: 18