Constitutional Validity of Rule 8-B (1) of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 Amaresh Patel LANDMARK JUDGMENT Fri, May 28, 2021, at ,10:11 AM Title of the Case – Constitutional Validity of Rule 8-B (1) of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994Name of the case – K Thirumalesh vs. State of Karnataka., W.P. No. 10601/2019 C/W, (Karnataka High Court) Date of Judgment – 16th August, 2019Judges: Chief Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice P.S. Dinesh KumarSubject and sections involved – Constitutional Validity of Rule 8-B (1) of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994Issue: Whether Rule 8-B (1), as inserted after amendment 12th Aug, 2016 is constitutionally valid? Fact of the Case: This group of petitions concerns interpretation of various provisions of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, and in particular Rule 8-B as well as a challenge to constitutional validity of sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B. The Rules have been framed by the State Government in exercise of the power conferred by Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.With the object of eliminating the discretion and improving transparency in the allocation of mineral resources, auction regime was introduced as a method of allotment of mining leases/prospecting licenses. Amendments were made with effect from 12th Aug, 2016. The substituted Rule 8-B provided that all applications for grant of mining lease or license received and pending on the date of commencement of the amendment shall be ineligible. Certain exceptions were carved out to the said Rule 8-A provided that from 12th Aug, 2016, all the allocations for grant of quarry leases shall be granted for a period of thirty years for specified minor minerals and for a period of 20 years for the non-specified minor minerals. It was also provided that all quarry leases or licenses granted before 12th Aug, 2016 shall be deemed to have been granted for a period of thirty years in respect of specified minor minerals and for a period of 20 years in respect of non-specified minor minerals from the date of its original grant.The entire controversy in this group of writ petitions revolves around the provision of Rule 8-B, as amended by the said notification, with effect from 12th Aug, 2016, we must note here that in most of the petitions in this group of writ petitions, the main challenge is only to the endorsements issued by the authorities, by which, applications for grant of quarrying lease made prior to 12th Aug, 2016, were rejected by replying upon Rule 8-B (1), as amended with effect from 12th Aug, 2016. There are few cases where the applications filed prior to 12th Aug, 2016 have been kept pending for consideration.The constitutional validity of Rule 8-B (1) is challenged in the petition.Ratio of the case - The Karnataka High Court while upholds the constitutional validity of Rule 8-B, as amended on 12th Aug, 2016.Judgments Relied on Consideration of the question whether the decisions of the coordinate Benches constitutes binding precedentsState of Uttar Pradesh and anr vs. Synthetics and Chemicals Limited and anr., (1991) 4 SCC 139“Does the principles extends and apply to a conclusion of law, which was neither raised not preceded by any consideration. In other words can such conclusions be considered as declaration of law? Here again the English Courts and jurists have craved out an exception to the Rule of precedents. It has been explained as Rule of sub-silentio. A decision passed sub-silentio, in the technical sense that has come to be attached to that phrase, when the particular point of law involved in the decision is not perceived by the Court or present to its mind. In Lancaster Motor Company (London) Ltd v. Bremith Lts, the Court did not feel bound by earlier decision as it was rendered ‘without any argument, without reference to the crucial words of the Rule and without any citation of the authority.”Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd and anr vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr, (2011) 9 SCC 354“a point in respect of which no argument was advanced and no citation of authority was made is not binding and would not be followed. This court held that such decisions which are treated having been passed sub silentio and without argument, are of no moment.”Purbanchal Cables and Conductors Pvt Ltd vs. Assam State Electricity Board and anr., (2012) 7 SCC 462“A decision should be treated as given per incuriam when it is given in ignorance of the terms of a statute or of a rule having the force of a statute.”Judgment Relied upon on Issue of Constitutional ValidityState of Madhya Pradesh vs. Rakesh Kohli and anr., (2012) 6 SCC 312“The Statute enacted by Parliament or a State Legislature cannot be declared unconstitutionally lightly. The Court must be able to hold beyond any lota of doubt that the violation of the constitutional provisions was so glaring that the legislative provision under challenge cannot stand.”Mohd. Hanif Quareshi and Ors vs. State of Bihar and Ors., AIR 1958 SC 731 “The pronouncements of this Court further establish, amongst other things that there is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment and that the burden is upon him, who attacks it, to show that there has been a clear violation of the constitutional principles. The Courts, it is accepted, must presume that the Legislature understands and correctly appreciates the needs of its own people, that its law are directed to problems made manifest by experience and that its discriminations are based on adequate grounds. It must be borne in mind that the Legislature is free to recognize degree of harm and may confine its restrictions to those cases where the need is deemed to be the clearest the finally that in order to sustain the presumption of constitutionality the Court may take into consideration matters of common knowledge, matters of common report, the history of the times and may assume every state of facts which can be conceived existing at the time of legislation.”