If Last Day For Renewal Of Quarry Lease Falls On Public Holiday, Application Can Be Made On Following Day: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has said that an application for renewal of the license of quarry lease can be made on the last day of the expiry period upto midnight and if the last day is a public holiday, then it can be made on the following day.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi held thus while allowing a petition filed by M/s Annapurneshwari Minerals who had approached the court challenging the order dated 13.08.2020 passed by the Joint Director and Revision Authority, Department of Mines and Geology, South Zone, Mysuru. The rejection was in terms of Rule 28 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994.
The said quarry lease was initially granted to one Shri Doddachinnappa [the original lessee] on 18.03.2011 for a period of ten years with effect from 30.12.2003. The term of the lease expired on 29.12.2013. Prior to the expiry of the said lease, the original lessee (Shri Doddachinnappa) made an application before the Senior Geologist for the transfer of the licence/lease in favour of the petitioner. The said application was accepted by an order dated 26.12.2013. The quarry lease/licence in question was transferred in favour of the petitioner.
The petitioner made an application for renewal of the quarry lease on 30.12.2013, which was rejected by an order dated 18.01.2014. The same was challenged before the revisional authority which confirmed the order.
The petitioner argued that his application for renewal was rejected on the ground that it was not filed prior to expiry of the lease. He had applied for renewal of the quarry lease/licence on 30.12.2013, as 29.12.2013 was a Sunday and therefore, a holiday.
Referring to Sections 9 and 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 it was said his application for renewal was filed within time.
The bench noted that the original lessee transferred the lease in favour of the petitioner, which was accepted by respondent No.5 in terms of an order dated 26.12.2013. The petitioner made an application for renewal of the lease on 30.12.2013. The petitioner's application for renewal was also accompanied by two demand drafts for a sum of `2,000/- and `2,500/- towards fees for renewal application and security deposit respectively.
Emphasising that in terms of Sub-rule(2) of Rule 21 of the 1994 Rules, the court said that every application for renewal of a lease to quarry non-specified minor mineral, is required to be filed on or before ninety days before expiry of the lease. However, the delay in filing the application for renewal of the lease can be condoned on payment of penalty, provided that it is made before the expiry of the lease.
The bench said “Since ninety days have to be calculated backwards from the end of the term of the lease, the starting point for calculating the said period would be from 12.00 AM on 29.12.2013, being the date of expiry of the said licence.”
It noted that the petitioner had not made an application within the period as stipulated under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 of the 1994 Rules. However, the petitioner was entitled to make a delayed application on payment of penalty. The maximum penalty as stipulated is 25% of the fee as payable, if the application for renewal was made after a delay of more than two months but before expiry of lease.
The court said, “As the last date of term of the lease was 29.12.2013, the lease would expire at midnight of the said date. Thus, the petitioner was also entitled to file his application for renewal during the business hours on 29.12.2013. However, the said day was a Sunday. Therefore, no application could be filed on 29.12.2013.”
Referring to Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, the court said “The last date on which the petitioner could make an application with penalty was 29.12.2013. Since the same was a holiday, the petitioner could make an application on the day following, that is, on 30.12.2013. Thus, the contention that the petitioner's application for renewal was made after expiry of the said period, is unsustainable.”
Following this, it set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Revisional Authority to consider it afresh.
Appearance: Advocate Bhat Ganapthy Narayan for Petitioner.
AGA K S Harish for Respondent.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 342
Case Title: M/S. ANNAPURNESHWARI MINERALS AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.265 OF 2021