Partly allowed

Sri. D C Ramesh (Alias Raghu) v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Jun 2018WP/13571/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenged the prolonged non-consideration of the petitioner's application for a quarry lease. The Court disposed of the petition directing the Deputy Director to decide the application within 90 days.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Deputy Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Ramanagar, to consider the petitioner's application for quarry lease and take a final decision within 90 days.

Sri. D C Ramesh (Alias Raghu) Vs the State… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

W.P.No.13571/2018

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO.13571 OF 2018 (GM-MM-S)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI.D.C.RAMESH (ALIAS RAGHU) S/O CHANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT GUDDENAHALLI KOPPALU J.H.KERE POST, KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUQ HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 201 ... PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI.PRAKASH B.S., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT (MSME & MINES) VIKASA SOUDHA

¶15

BANGALORE – 560 001

¶16

THE DIRECTOR/COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVANA

¶17

R.C.ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001

¶18

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KANDAYA BHAVANA, (D.C.’s OFFICE BLDG)

¶19

RAMANAGAR – 562 127 ... RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.V.G.BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

¶21

W.P.No.13571/2018

¶22

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION DATED 08.05.2015 EXPEDITIOUSLY WITHIN A TIME FRAME, WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR GRANT OF QUARRY LEASE IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY, AND ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, it appears just and proper to dispose of this petition at this stage itself.

¶27

Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant aspects of the present matter are that the petitioner herein is stating grievance that his application for grant of quarrying lease/licence for quarrying multi colour granite over an extent of 2-20 acres of land in survey No.74 at Sripathihalli village, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagar District, though made way back on 08.05.2015, has not been considered and has not been disposed of by the authorities concerned as yet.

¶28

Learned Additional Government Advocate is not in a position to dispute the facts as asserted on the petition that

¶29

W.P.No.13571/2018

¶30

¶31

the application made by the petitioner has indeed remained pending for all this time.

¶32

In the given set of facts and circumstances, it appears just and proper to observe that the authorities concerned should take final decision on the application made by the petitioner at the earliest, of course in accordance with law.

¶33

For what has been observed hereinabove, this petition stands disposed at this stage itself with the requirement that the respondent No.3 – Deputy Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Ramanagar District, shall consider the application made by the petitioner on 08.05.2015 and shall take final decision thereupon in accordance with law and at the earliest, preferably within 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶34

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

AHB

Sri. D C Ramesh (Alias Raghu) v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. D C Ramesh (Alias Raghu) v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Syed Alim Vs Sri. Akthar Mateen

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

Ibthesam Javeed Vs State of Karnataka

Sri P Ranjan Rao Vs the Commissioner

E Lakshmi Vs Corporaton Bank

Sri. K. Ananth Vs the State of Karnataka