Allowed

Ibthesam Javeed v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Jun 2018WP/13079/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bench disposed of connected writ petitions challenging rejection of quarrying lease applications. Court held authorities must consider applications received before cutoff date, complying with prior precedents to provide further views on Rule 8B compliance and seek conclusions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned endorsements disapproved; authorities directed to send views within two weeks and decide on lease execution within four weeks.

Ibthesam Javeed Vs State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

W.P.No.40868/2017 and connected matters

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.40868 OF 2017 (GM-MM-S) C/W WRIT PETITION NOS.44599 OF 2017, 7730 OF 2018

¶9

AND 13079 OF 2018

¶10

IN W.P.NO.40868/2017

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

SRI.K.C.JAYARAJ S/O SRI.K.C.CHANNARAJU AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/O A.V.R. ROAD J.C.EXTENSION KANAKAPURA TOWN KANAKARAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 117 ... PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI.V.R.BALARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY

¶16

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA

¶17

BENGALURU – 560 001

¶18

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES VIKAS SOUDHA

¶19

BENGALURU – 560 001

¶20

W.P.No.40868/2017 and connected matters

¶21

¶22

THE DIRECTOR

¶23

DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001

¶24

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

¶25

& COMPETENT AUTHORITY

¶26

DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY CHIKKABALLAPURA

¶27

CHIKKBALLAPURA DISTRICT – 562 101

¶28

THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER AND CHAIRMAN DISTRICT TASK FORCE (MINES COMMITTEE) CHIKBALLAPUR DISTRICT

¶29

CHIKKBALLAPURA – 562 101 ... RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI.VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)

¶31

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 24.07.2017 AT ANNEXURE-C PASSED BY 3^RD RESPONDENT I.E, DIRECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, REFUSING TO GRANT AND EXECUTE A QUARRYING LEASE TO EXTRACT GRANITE BLOCKS, AND ETC.

¶33

IN W.P.NO.44599/2017

¶34

BETWEEN:

¶35

SRI.PRASAD S/O VASUDEVA ACHARYA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/O RANGANAKERE, HERADI VILLAGE BARKUR POST, UDUPI TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 104

¶36

... PETITIONER

¶37

(BY SRI.ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.GIRISH KUMAR S, ADVOCATE)

¶38

W.P.No.40868/2017 and connected matters

¶39

¶40

AND:

¶41

THE COMMISSIONER

¶42

MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT KHANIJA BHAVANA

¶43

RACE COURSE ROAD

¶44

BENGALURU – 560 001

¶45

THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY MINERAL HOUSE, 4^TH FLOOR

¶46

RAJATHADRI, MANIPAL UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 104

¶47

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UDUPI DISTRICT

¶48

RAJATHADRI, MANIPAL – 576 104 UDUPI

¶49

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST KUNDAPURA SUB DIVISION

¶50

KUNDAPURA

¶51

UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 201

¶52

SPECIAL TAHASILDHAR BRAMMAVAR

¶53

UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 104 ... RESPONDENTS

¶54

(BY SRI.V.G.BHANUPRAKASH, AGA)

¶55

¶56

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE RULE 8B(1), 8B(2)(d) OF THE AMENDED RULES OF KARNATAKA MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION (AMENDMENT) RULES 2016 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND ETC.

¶57

IN W.P.NO.7730/2018

¶58

BETWEEN:

¶59

M/S. P.G.CONSTRUCTIONS NO.276/141, 9^TH MAIN

¶60

W.P.No.40868/2017 and connected matters

¶61

¶62

PIPELINE, VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 040 REPRESENTED BY PROPRIETOR SRI. B.P.NAVEEN S/O LATE PUTTASWAMY GOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS ... PETITIONER

¶63

(BY SRI.GANAPATHI BHAT VAJRALI, ADVOCATE)

¶64

AND :

¶65

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. BR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560001

¶66

THE SECRETARY COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGLAURU 560001

¶67

THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES OF GEOLOGY, KANIJA BHAVAN BENGLAURU 560001

¶68

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES OF GEOLOGY, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA 571 511

¶69

... RESPONDENTS

¶70

(BY SRI V.G. BHANUPRAKASH, AGA)

¶71

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE KARNATAKA MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION (AMENDMENT) RULES, 2016 BEARING NO.CI 418 MMN 2015 (PART), BENGALURU, DATED 12.08.2016, AS PER ANNEXUREC IN SO FAR AS RULE 8B (1) ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, NULL AND VOID AND SAME TO BE STRUCK DOWN, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC.,

¶72

W.P.No.40868/2017 and connected matters

IN WP NO 13079/2018

BETWEEN :

IBTHESAM JAVEED S/O LATE M N ABID AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O D NO. 6/437 1^ST CROSS, GUNDAL PET ROAD, CHAMARAJANAGAR DIST. – 571 313

¶77

... PETITIONER

¶78

(BY SRI SYED AKBAR PASHA, ADVOCATE)

¶79

AND :

¶80

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY (MINES, SSI, TEXTILE) COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES DEPT MS BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶81

THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN, R C ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶82

THE ADDL DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY CHAMARAJANAGARA DIST. – 571 313

¶83

THE DIST TASK FORCE R/P BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHAMARAJANAGAR DIST. – 571 313

¶84

... RESPONDENTS

¶85

(BY SRI V.G. BHANUPRAKASH, AGA)

¶86

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AN ENDORSEMENT DATED 28.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXUREF TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.,

¶87

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE , MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶88

W.P.No.40868/2017 and connected matters

¶89

¶90

ORDER

¶91

These petitions involving similar and akin issues have been considered together and are taken up for final disposal at this stage itself by way of this common order.

¶92

Learned counsel for the petitioners have moved respective memos in W.P.Nos.44599/23017 and 7730/2018 that they are not pressing on the challenge to the validity of Rule 8B(1) and 8B(2)(d) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2016.

¶93

It is not in dispute that several similar nature writ petitions have been considered and allowed by this Court, either while disapproving the similar endorsements and restoring the applications for reconsideration or while requiring the pending applications to be considered in accordance with law, including a batch of writ petitions led by W.P.No.43235/2017, decided on 11.04.2018, wherein this Court has, inter alia , observed as under:

¶94

“In the order dated 24.10.2017 in W.P.No.44260/2017, this Court has taken note of the provisions contained in the amended Rule 8-B of the Rules and has also

¶95

W.P.No.40868/2017 and connected matters

¶96

¶97

taken note of the candid submissions of the learned Additional Government Advocate as under:-

¶98

“5. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that this Court in Writ Petition No.25421/2017 (DD 04.07.2017) and in several other matters has held that applications as that of the petitioner do not become ineligible if the application was received by the Competent Authority before 16.06.2015 and further, it is held that it is the responsibility of the Competent Authority to consult the authorities referred to in Rule 8(5) of the Rules and to obtain the certificates and reports referred to therein. He further submits that the application of the petitioner was received by the Competent Authority before 16.06.2015.”

¶99

This Court has also considered the earlier orders passed in the matters and has allowed W.P.No.60155/2016 by the order dated 22.03.2018, while observing as under:

¶100

“Having regard to the submissions made, this petition stands disposed of at this stage itself, while requiring that the concerned authorities shall send their views/opinions to the authorities of the Mines and Geology Department within two weeks from today.

¶101

The authorities concerned shall consider and finally decide on the prayer of the writ petitioner for execution of the lease deed within four weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of this order.

¶102

No costs.”

¶103

W.P.No.40868/2017 and connected matters

¶104

¶105

The proposition aforesaid, for all practical purposes, apply to these cases too. This Court has repeatedly observed that it was the responsibility of the concerned authority/authorities to obtain the clearances and technical reports; and for their omissions, the applications could not have been rejected. We find no reason to take any different view of the matter.

¶106

Accordingly, all these petitions stand disposed of at this stage itself, while requiring that the concerned authorities shall send their views/opinions/reports to the authorities of Mines and Geology Department within two weeks from today.

¶107

The authorities concerned shall consider and finally decide on the prayer of the writ petitioners for execution of the lease deeds within four weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of this order.

¶108

No costs.”

¶109

The position aforesaid applies to the present cases too.

¶110

Accordingly, these writ petitions are also disposed of at this stage itself while disapproving the impugned endorsements, if made in rejection of the application of the writ petitioner/s and with the requirement that the concerned authorities shall send their views/opinions/reports to the

¶111

W.P.No.40868/2017 and connected matters

¶112

¶113

authorities of Mines and Geology Department within two weeks from today.

¶114

The authorities concerned shall consider and finally

¶115

decide on the prayer of the writ petitioners for execution of the lease deed within four weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of this order.

No costs.

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE

AHB

Ibthesam Javeed v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ibthesam Javeed v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Madhura Industries Vs the Authorised Officer/ the Chief Manager

Revnasiddappa Vs the State of Karnataka

M. Nanjunda Swamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Syed Alim Vs Sri. Akthar Mateen

Sri. D. v. Venkatesh Gowda Vs the Karnataka Co. Operative Milk Producers

Sri. Danavendra Vs the Karnataka State Commission for Schedule Castes