LexM/S VIVEK EXPORTS versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014] 6 S.C.R. 1154 M/S VIVEK EXPORTS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 7773 of 2014) AUGUST 19, 2014 [T.S. THAKUR, C. NAGAPPAN AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.] LEASE - Renewal of, validity - Held: If original lease is C held invalid, its renewal is also invalid - In the instant case, writ petition was filed challenging the renewal of quarry lease in favour of appellant after nine years of its grant - In a case where lease has been quashed by the Court for whatever reason, granting renewal of such a quashed lease was D impermissible and may amount to a fraud on the power of renewal exercised by the State Government - Delay in this case had not worked to the disadvantage of appellant as he had worked the lease for nearly 10 years - Such being the position, delay was not enough to defeat the action brought E by the third respondent before the High Court - The discretion exercised by the High Court to ignore the delay in filing of writ petition was not vitiated by any error - Delay and latches. The appellant was granted quarrying lease for F ornamental stones on 27 .02.1978 for a period of 5 years and the said lease was renewed for a further period of 5 years ending with 26.02.1988. An application of renewal was again filed but same was not considered favorably. Meanwhile Rule 3A of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1969 was amended and validity of G same was challenged in the High Court. The State government issued order dated 18.06.1991 resorting to Rule 3 for grant and renewal of quarry leases. The appellant applied for lease under the said order. On H 1154 VIVEK EXPORTS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 1155 26.6.1991, 203 quarry leases were granted under Rule 3 A and the appellant was also granted lease for a term of 10 years. The third respondent filed writ petitions challenging the validity of Government Order dated 18.06.1991. The High Court quashed the said order and this was upheld by the Supreme Court. In the meantime, B Rule 3A was deleted. The State Government issued Notification dated 21.12.2000 notifying the grant of renewal of quarry lease to the appellant for the same land for a period of ten years and subsequently by order dated 19.04.2008 the C Government extended the period of said lease for 20 years with effect froll! 11.05.2001. The third respondent applied for quarry lease over an area of 20 acres in the same s'urvey on 13.08.2008. However, in February, 2009 third respondent learnt about the grant of lease to. the D appellant over 15 acres in the same survey number. The third respondent filed a writ petition for quashing Government order dated 21.12.2000 granting lease in favour of the appellant and for quashing the Government order rejecting his application and for a direction to notify E the subject land for grant of lease. The High Court set aside Government Order dated 21.12.2000 as well as the rejection order dated 11.01.2010 and directed the competent authority to reconsider the claim of the third respondent and also gave liberty to the appellant to show F that he has a subsisting valid claim and disposed of the writ petition in the above terms. The instant appeal was filed challenging the order of the High Court. The main contention of the appellant was that the third respondent has challenged the renewal of the G quarry lease after 9 years of its grant and in the absence of proper explanation, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. It was the contention of the third respondent that he applied for H 1156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R. A quarry lease over subject land on 13.8.2008 and, thereafter only he learnt about the grant of lease to the appellant, and after collecting the details, he filed the writ petition challenging the grant of renewal as well as the order rejecting his application for grant of lease. 8 Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The lease granted to the appellant on 26.6.1991 was not a renewal but a fresh lease. In fact a total number of 203 leases were granted pursuant to the c Government order dated 18.6.1991. The validity of the said Government order was challenged by filing writ petitions and the High Court quashed Government order dated 18.6.1991 and declared all consequential action taken under it as null and void. The grantees of leases preferred 0 further appeals to this Court and it was held that the ju
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.