Holiday-Extension for Quarry Lease Renewals under KMMC Rules: Karnataka High Court harmonizes Rule 21(2) with Sections 9 and 10 of the General Clauses Act and reaffirms communication-based limitation for revisions

Introduction

In M/S Annapurneshwari Minerals v. The State of Karnataka (W.P. No. 265 of 2021), the Karnataka High Court (Vibhu Bakhru, C.J. and C.M. Joshi, J.) addressed two recurring questions in mining administration:

How should the deadline “on or before ninety days before the expiry of the lease” under Rule 21(2) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (KMMC Rules) be computed?
What happens when the last permissible day for renewal (including the “before expiry” window for filing with penalty) falls on a holiday?

The case arose from the rejection of a renewal application for a one-acre building-stone quarry lease (QL No. 138) in Survey No. 43, Chikka Nagavalli Village, Chikkaballapur District. The original lessee, Shri Doddachinnappa, had secured a renewal effective 30 December 2003 for ten years. In December 2013, shortly before expiry, the lease was transferred to the petitioner, M/s Annapurneshwari Minerals, which filed a renewal application on 30 December 2013. The Senior Geologist rejected the application on 18 January 2014 as belated. A revision filed years later was dismissed by the Revisional Authority as time-barred.

The writ petition challenged both the revisional order (dated 13 August 2020) and the rejection order (dated 18 January 2014), alleging misapplication of limitation and computation rules, and non-communication of the rejection order.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court set aside the revisional order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, laying down the following key points:

Expiry date clarified: The ten-year term that began on 30 December 2003 expired on 29 December 2013. The “last day” of the lease is 29 December 2013; suggesting expiry on 30 December 2013 would improperly add an extra day.
Backward computation under Rule 21(2): For the clause “on or before ninety days before the expiry of the lease,” the Court, following Robo Silicon, held that the expiry date (here, 29 December 2013) is included when counting backwards, making 1 October 2013 the 90th day before expiry. Thus, an application to avoid penalty had to be filed on or before 1 October 2013.
Window for delayed filing with penalty extends to the next working day if the last day is a holiday: Although the petitioner missed the 90-day window, Rule 21(2) permits delayed renewal “before expiry” on payment of penalty. Since the last permissible day (29 December 2013) was a Sunday, Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899 applied; the application filed on 30 December 2013 was deemed within time.
Revision limitation runs from communication: Under Rule 53(1) of the KMMC Rules, the 90-day revisional limitation runs from the date the adverse order is communicated. There was no material to show the 18 January 2014 rejection was communicated to the petitioner; the Revisional Authority erred in dismissing the revision as time-barred without examining this threshold requirement.
Remand: The revisional order was set aside and the matter remanded to the Revisional Authority to reconsider the renewal rejection, bearing in mind the Court’s interpretation of computation under Rule 21(2), the application of Section 10, and the communication-based trigger for revisional limitation.

Case Background and Timeline

30.12.1998: Original five-year lease granted; expired 29.12.2003.
18.03.2011: Following prior litigation and revisional directions, lease deed executed for a ten-year renewal effective 30.12.2003.
19.12.2013 / 26.12.2013: Transfer deed executed by the original lessee; transfer to petitioner accepted by the Senior Geologist.
30.12.2013: Petitioner applied for renewal, attaching demand drafts (Rs. 2,000 application fee and Rs. 2,500 security deposit).
18.01.2014: Renewal rejected, inter alia, as beyond time; not communicated to the petitioner.
Sept. 2019: Petitioner learns of the rejection, obtains a copy via RTI, and files revision (No. 71/2019-20).
13.08.2020: Revisional Authority rejects the revision as time-barred and upholds the rejection.
10.10.2025: High Court judgment setting aside the revisional order and remanding.

Analysis

Precedents and Provisions Cited

Rule 21 of the KMMC Rules, 1994 (as amended w.e.f. 16.12.2013):
- Rule 21(2): Renewal applications must be filed “on or before ninety days before the expiry of the lease,” with an arrears-clearance certificate, fee, and security deposit difference. A delay can be condoned on payment of a graded penalty, provided the application is made before expiry.
- Rule 21(2-A): Deemed extension of the lease for up to one year if a renewal application made on or before the expiry date is not disposed of before expiry.
Rule 53(1), KMMC Rules, 1994: Revision must be filed within ninety days from the date of communication of the impugned order.
Section 9, Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899 (pari materia with Section 9, General Clauses Act, 1897): Governs how to exclude/include days when computing periods; used here to count backwards from the expiry date.
Section 10, Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899: If the last day for doing an act in an office is a day on which that office is closed, doing the act on the next open day is in due time.
M/s. Robo Silicon Limited v. State of Karnataka (W.P. No. 28148/2019): A Division Bench precedent applying Section 9 of the 1899 Act. It held that when a statute requires an application “three months before the expiry,” one counts backward from the expiry date, excluding that last date for computation; thereby identifying the correct terminal date for timely filing.

Legal Reasoning

Determining the true expiry date of the lease
The Court first fixed the anchor: the ten-year term commenced on 30 December 2003 and therefore expired at midnight on 29 December 2013. Treating 30 December 2013 as the expiry date would incorrectly add a day to the contractual/statutory term. This clarity matters because all subsequent computations (the 90-day window and the “before expiry” penalty window) hinge on the precise expiry date.
Backward computation under Rule 21(2)
Rule 21(2) mandates filing “on or before ninety days before the expiry of the lease.” Relying on Robo Silicon, the Court reasoned that one must count backward from the expiry date. The last day of the lease (29 December 2013) is taken as the starting point for the backward count, making 1 October 2013 the 90th day before expiry. An application filed to avoid penalty should therefore be lodged on or before 1 October 2013. The petitioner’s application on 30 December 2013 plainly missed this window.
Meaning of “before expiry of the lease” for delayed filing with penalty
Rule 21(2)’s second proviso permits delayed renewal applications on payment of a graded penalty, but only if filed “before expiry of the lease.” The Court read “before expiry” as the entire last day of the term—29 December 2013—up to midnight. Practically, that means such an application can be filed during office hours on 29 December 2013.
Section 10 saves filings when the last day is a holiday
Because 29 December 2013 was a Sunday, the office was closed. Section 10 of the 1899 Act therefore stepped in: when an act is permitted on a certain day in an office, and the office is closed, doing the act on the next open day is in time. Applying Section 10, the renewal application filed on Monday, 30 December 2013, is deemed filed “before expiry” for the purposes of the penalty provision. This is the central holding: agencies cannot reject as time-barred an application lodged on the next working day when the last permissible day fell on a holiday.
Revisional limitation runs from communication, not mere date of order
Rule 53(1) allows 90 days “from the date of communication” of the impugned order. There was no evidence the 18 January 2014 rejection was ever communicated to the petitioner; the petitioner claimed knowledge only in September 2019 via RTI. The Revisional Authority failed to examine this foundational issue and dismissed the revision as delayed by over six years. The High Court noted even the English translation of the revisional order appeared inaccurate and, in any case, the revisional authority had not addressed “communication.” That error alone warranted setting aside the revisional order.
Outstanding compliance questions left to the revisional forum
The State suggested the renewal application was not accompanied by the mandatory arrears-clearance certificate (a new requirement introduced by the 16 December 2013 amendment to Rule 21(2)). The Court did not adjudicate this factual dispute. It noted the application enclosed two demand drafts (Rs. 2,000 for application fee and Rs. 2,500 for security deposit) and observed, prima facie, that penalty also appeared to have been furnished; the precise compliance status is to be verified on remand.

Impact and Prospective Significance

Uniform application of Section 10 to “last day” administrative filings: When the last permissible day to seek a quarry lease renewal (including the “before expiry” penalty window) falls on a holiday, applications filed on the next working day must be treated as timely. This promotes administrative fairness and reduces arbitrary rejections.
Backwards counting clarified across “before expiry” clauses: The judgment confirms that backward computation under “on or before [x days] before expiry” includes the expiry date as the starting point (consistent with Robo Silicon and Section 9). This clarity is valuable beyond mining law whenever statutes or rules use “before expiry” language.
Communication as the trigger for revisional limitation: Revisional authorities under the KMMC Rules must prove communication of adverse orders before invoking limitation. Mere existence or internal issuance of an order does not start the clock; lack of communication vitiates time-bar dismissals.
Administrative practice changes: Authorities (Senior Geologist/DMG) should:
- Note office-closure days and accept next-working-day filings as within time where the statute allows filing “on a certain day” and that day is a holiday.
- Maintain reliable records of communication (service) of orders; incorporate acknowledgment mechanisms to evidence service.
- Ensure consideration of penalty brackets under Rule 21(2) when applications miss the 90-day window but arrive before expiry (or on the next working day if the last day was a holiday).
Potential implications for deemed extension (Rule 21(2-A)): If, on remand, the renewal application is treated as “made on or before the expiry of the lease” by virtue of Section 10, the lessee may be entitled to the deemed extension provision (up to one year) where the authority failed to decide before expiry. The revisional forum will need to examine this, along with compliance (arrears-clearance certificate, penalty, etc.).
Transitional compliance under the 16.12.2013 amendment: Applications filed after 16 December 2013 must comply with the amended Rule 21(2), including the arrears-clearance certificate. This case signals that while timing defects may be cured by Section 10, substantive filing requirements still matter and will be scrutinized on remand.

Complex Concepts Simplified

“Expiry of lease” vs. “before expiry”: The lease exists through its last day. “Before expiry” includes that last day. An application made any time during office hours on that last day is “before expiry.”
Backward computation under Section 9: When a law says “file X days before expiry,” start counting from the expiry date backwards. The expiry date is part of the count; you don’t add an extra day beyond the term.
Section 10 “holiday rule”: If the last day to perform an official act falls on a day the office is closed, doing it on the next open day is treated as timely. This protects litigants from losing rights due to office closures.
Penalty brackets for late renewal under Rule 21(2): The rules allow late filing (still “before expiry”) on paying additional sums calculated as a percentage of the annual dead rent, subject to minimum amounts. The longer the delay (up to the last day), the higher the penalty, capped in the rule.
“Communication” triggers limitation for revision (Rule 53): The 90-day period to file a revision starts when the order is communicated to the applicant, not merely when the order is signed or internally recorded. Official service or provable communication is key.
Deemed extension (Rule 21(2-A)): If a renewal application made on or before expiry is not decided before the lease expires, the lease is deemed extended for up to one year. Whether Section 10’s “next day” filing qualifies as “on or before expiry” is a fact-and-law question; the High Court’s approach suggests it can, where the last day was a holiday.

Conclusion

The Karnataka High Court’s ruling meaningfully calibrates strict timelines with pragmatic fairness in the administration of minor mineral leases. Three messages stand out:

Backward counting clarified: The “ninety days before expiry” window under Rule 21(2) must be computed by counting backwards from the actual expiry date, anchoring on the last day of the term.
Holiday extension secured: If the last permissible day to file a renewal (even in the penalty window) is a holiday, Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act ensures that filing on the next working day is timely. Rejections as “after expiry” in such circumstances are legally unsustainable.
Revisions must be communication-based: The 90-day clock for revisions under Rule 53(1) does not run until the impugned order is communicated. Dismissing revisions without examining communication is jurisdictionally flawed.

By setting aside the revisional order and remanding, the Court reoriented the focus to correct legal standards: precise time computation, the saving operation of Section 10, and communication as the trigger for limitation. On remand, issues such as compliance with the arrears-clearance certificate requirement and the quantum/tender of penalty will be addressed. Going forward, the decision will guide mining authorities and lessees alike, reducing technical rejections and aligning administrative practice with foundational principles in the General Clauses Act.