If Last Day Falls on Sunday, Filing on Next Working Day Is Within Time: Karnataka HC Upholds Right to Renewal Under General Clauses Act

“Section 10 of General Clauses Act Saves Quarry Lease Renewal Filed on Monday After Sunday Expiry” – In a significant decision reiterating the protective scope of the General Clauses Act, the Karnataka High Court on 10 October 2025 held that a quarry lease renewal application filed on the next working day after expiry due to a Sunday cannot be treated as delayed. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi set aside the rejection of a renewal application and remanded the matter back to the revisional authority for fresh consideration.

The ruling came in the case of M/s. Annapurneshwari Minerals v. State of Karnataka & Ors. [W.P. No. 265/2021], where the petitioner challenged the rejection of its quarry lease renewal as time-barred and the further dismissal of its revision petition as delayed by over six years. The Court held that Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and its Mysore counterpart, applied squarely, thereby validating filings made on the next open day.

“Right to File on Next Working Day When Deadline Falls on Holiday Is Statutorily Protected”

The key issue revolved around the date of expiry of the original lease, which was 29.12.2013 (a Sunday). The petitioner had filed the renewal application on 30.12.2013, the next working day, which was summarily rejected as being beyond the expiry period.

The High Court rejected the government’s contention that the application was time-barred:

“It is clear from the plain language of Section 10 of the 1899 Act that where any act... is allowed to be done in any office on a certain day, and if that office is closed on that day, the act shall be considered as done in due time if done on the next open day.”

The Bench concluded that “the application for renewal made on 30.12.2013 was legally valid”, and rejection on that ground is unsustainable.

“Application Made With Fees and Security Deposit Indicates Bona Fide Compliance” – Delay in Communication Fatal to Dismissal of Revision

The petitioner's application for lease renewal was filed along with two demand drafts, one for ₹2,000/- (application fee) and another for ₹2,500/- (security deposit), as required under Rule 21(2) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994.

Despite this, the authorities rejected the renewal, citing lack of a clearance certificate for arrears and belated filing. However, the Court found that the petitioner was not given notice or opportunity to rectify this procedural issue.

Moreover, the revision petition, filed in 2019, was dismissed as being beyond the 90-day limitation under Rule 53(1). The petitioner contended that the rejection order dated 18.01.2014 was never communicated and was obtained under the RTI Act only in 2019. The Court noted:

“There is no material on record to establish that the order of rejection was communicated to the petitioner. The impugned order does not indicate that the issue was considered by the Revisional Authority.”

Accordingly, the High Court held that the limitation for revision would begin from the date of communication, and not from the date of the order.

“Literal Interpretation of Lease Expiry Would Defeat Justice” – Court Clarifies Application of Sections 9 & 10

The State had argued that the lease expired on 29.12.2013, and therefore the last day to apply was that date itself, with no scope for delayed filing. The High Court disagreed, invoking Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and its Mysore variant (Section 10 of the 1899 Act).

The Bench drew support from the precedent in M/s. Robo Silicon Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, where a similar issue of statutory timing was resolved in favour of the applicant by excluding the holiday from the limitation count:

“Since 29.12.2013 was a Sunday, the leaseholder could not be expected to file an application. The application filed on 30.12.2013 is valid in law.”

It also emphasized that excluding the first day of a lease term (i.e., 30.12.2003) to extend the expiry date to 30.12.2013 would artificially create a one-day gap, which would defeat the continuity of lease periods under Rule 21(2).

“Revisional Authority Failed to Examine Communication Issue – Remand Ordered”

The Court found that the Revisional Authority erroneously dismissed the revision for delay without verifying whether the rejection order had ever been communicated, which is a jurisdictional prerequisite under Rule 53(1):

“There is also no material on record to establish that the order of rejection was communicated to the petitioner... The issue was not considered by the Revisional Authority.”

Therefore, the impugned order dated 13.08.2020 and the rejection order dated 18.01.2014 were both set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration, allowing all issues to be raised again.

Statutory Grace Must Prevail Over Rigid Deadlines

This judgment reinforces a principle of fairness in administrative procedures, especially in licensing and lease renewals under mining laws. The Karnataka High Court interpreted procedural deadlines in line with beneficial and remedial statutory intent, rejecting formalistic denials that ignore real-world constraints, such as government office closures on Sundays.

“Rejection of applications solely on mechanical grounds, without examining communication and compliance issues, undermines principles of natural justice,” the Court observed.

Date of Decision: 10 October 2025