SRI V VENKATESHULU vs THE SECRETARY Advocate - DESAI SHARANABASAPPA VIRANNA — WP/13296/2022

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 17th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: KAHC010297172022

Filing Number

WP/12569/2022

Filing Date

01-Jul-2022

Registration No

WP/13296/2022

Registration Date

04-Jul-2022

Judge

Chief Justice , C.M. Poonacha

Coram

Chief Justice , C.M. Poonacha

Bench Type

Division Bench

Category

WP ( 144 )

Sub-Category

MM_S-Mines/Minerals-State ( 42 )

Judicial Branch

Judicial Section

Decision Date

17-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 28-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SRI V VENKATESHULU

    Adv. BHAT GANAPATHI NARAYANA, ,

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE SECRETARY Advocate - DESAI SHARANABASAPPA VIRANNA

  2. 2.THE JOINT SECRETARY

    Adv. DESAI SHARANABASAPPA VIRANNA

  3. 3.THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

    Adv. GA

  4. 4.THE SECRETARY II (MINES )

    Adv. GA

  5. 5.THE DIRECTOR (MINES )

    Adv. GA

  6. 6.THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST

    Adv. GA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Apr-2026

    Chief Justice,c.m. PoonachaView PDF

    Case Summary: WP 13296/2022 - Sri V Venkateshulu vs. Government Officials The Karnataka High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner's mining lease (ML No. 2368) was ineligible for deemed extension under Section 8A of the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015, due to non-compliance with lease conditions. The court found that the petitioner failed to resume mining operations for 9 years since April 2013 despite Supreme Court permission, did not submit a reclamation/rehabilitation plan, and did not pay required compensation, resulting in lease lapse. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 19-Jan-2026

    Preliminary Hearing(ready In Notice)

    Chief Justice , C.M. Poonacha

  4. 13-Jan-2026

    Preliminary Hearing(ready In Notice)

    Chief Justice , C.M. Poonacha

  5. 16-Oct-2025

    Hearing - Interlocutory Appln

    Chief Justice , C M Joshi

  6. 11-Aug-2025

    Hearing - Interlocutory Appln

    Acting Chief Justice , C M Joshi

  7. 09-Jun-2025

    Hearing - Interlocutory Appln

    N. V. Anjaria (Cj) , K. V. Aravind

  8. 04-Apr-2025

    Hearing - Interlocutory Appln

    N. V. Anjaria (Cj) , M.i.arun

  9. 05-Mar-2025

    Preliminary Hearing

    N. V. Anjaria (Cj) , M.i.arun

  10. 09-Jan-2025

    Furnshing Of Pf And Etc

    N. V. Anjaria (Cj) , K. V. Aravind

  11. 25-Nov-2024

    Orders-Non Filing

    N. V. Anjaria (Cj) , K. V. Aravind

  12. 21-Oct-2024

    Preliminary Hearing

    V Kameswar Rao , Rajesh Rai K

  13. 18-Oct-2024

    Preliminary Hearing

    V Kameswar Rao , Rajesh Rai K

  14. 30-Aug-2024

    Preliminary Hearing

    N. V. Anjaria (Cj) , K. V. Aravind

  15. 23-Aug-2024

    Preliminary Hearing

    N. V. Anjaria (Cj) , K. V. Aravind

  16. 21-Aug-2024

    Orders-Non Filing

    N. V. Anjaria (Cj) , K. V. Aravind

  17. 06-Aug-2024

    Preliminary Hearing - B Group

    N. V. Anjaria (Cj) , K. V. Aravind

  18. 09-Jul-2024

    Orders-Non Filing

    N. V. Anjaria (Cj) , K. V. Aravind

  19. 01-Jul-2024

    Preliminary Hearing

    N. V. Anjaria (Cj) , K. V. Aravind

  20. 04-Jun-2024

    Orders-Non Filing

    N. V. Anjaria (Cj) , Krishna S Dixit

  21. 06-Jul-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  22. 01-Jul-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/13296/2022

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP 13296/2022 - Sri V Venkateshulu vs. Government Officials The Karnataka High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner's mining lease (ML No. 2368) was ineligible for deemed extension under Section 8A of the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015, due to non-compliance with lease conditions. The court found that the petitioner failed to resume mining operations for 9 years since April 2013 despite Supreme Court permission, did not submit a reclamation/rehabilitation plan, and did not pay required compensation, resulting in lease lapse. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case