Allowed

Sri M G Shivashankraswamy v. the Senior Geologist

Karnataka HC3 Jul 2018WP/26094/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed writ petitions challenging rejection of quarrying lease applications. Court held authority must consider applications received before cutoff date and obtain requisite clearances. Directs authorities to submit reports and execute leases within specified timelines.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 07.11.2017 quashed; authorities directed to send reports within two weeks and decide on execution of lease deeds within four weeks.

Sri M G Shivashankraswamy Vs the Senior… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

W.P.Nos.26094-26095/2018

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JULY, 2018

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶6

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT

¶7

WRIT PETITION NOS. 26094-26095 OF 2018 (GM-MM-S)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI M.G.SHIVASHANKARASWAMY S/O GURUSIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O MALLENAHALLI VILLAGE YEDAVANAHALLI POST GANDASI HOBLI ARASIKERE TALUK – 573 119 HASSAN DISTRICT

¶10

SRI YATHEESHSWAMY S/O GURUSIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O MALLENAHALLI VILLAGE YEDAVANAHALLI POST GANDASI HOBLI ARASIKERE TALUK – 573 119 HASSAN DISTRICT

¶11

... PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI P. MAHESHA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY MINERAL DIVISION # MIG 73 KUVEMPUNAGAR HASSAN – 573 201

¶15

W.P.Nos.26094-26095/2018

¶16

¶17

THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560001

¶18

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY MINERAL DIVISION #MIG 73 KUVEMPUNAGAR HASAN – 573 201

¶19

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN – 573 201

¶20

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES (MINES)-2 VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001 ... RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)

¶22

¶23

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE R-1 SENIOR GEOLOGIST MINES AND GEOLOGY HASSAN DTD:7.11.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND L & ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.Nos.26094-26095/2018

¶26

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The petitioners herein state the grievance against the orders dated 07.11.2017 (Annexures-K and L) for rejection of their applications for grant of quarrying lease.

¶29

It is not in dispute that several similar nature writ petitions have been considered and allowed by this Court while disapproving the similar nature endorsements and while restoring the applications for reconsideration, 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:

¶30

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

¶31

“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

¶32

W.P.Nos.26094-26095/2018

¶33

¶34

reports referred to therein. He further submits that the application of the petitioner was received by the Competent Authority before 16.06.2015.”

¶35

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:

¶36

“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.

¶37

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.

¶38

No costs.”

¶39

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.

¶40

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.

¶41

W.P.Nos.26094-26095/2018

¶42

¶43

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.

¶44

No costs.”

¶45

Perusal of the record makes out that in these matters in fact the approach of the authorities concerned in taking the petitioners as being ineligible was disapproved by an earlier order dated 05.04.2017, as passed in W.P.Nos.1061710618/2017, whereby the authorities concerned were directed to collect the technical report and reconsider the applications made by the petitioners for grant of quarrying leases. The authorities concerned have, however, chosen to reject the applications again, while taking the petitioners ineligible for want of NOC before 11.08.2016. Even from the other aspects indicated in the impugned orders dated 07.11.2017, it is difficult to cull out a definite and categorical finding as to why the applications of the petitioners were being rejected.

¶46

Thus, in parity with the orders passed in relation to the other similarly circumstanced applicants, it appears appropriate to dispose of these writ petitions with similar

¶47

W.P.Nos.26094-26095/2018

¶48

¶49

orders while disapproving the impugned orders dated 07.11.2017.

¶50

Accordingly, these writ petitions are also disposed of at this stage itself with the requirement that the authorities concerned shall send their views/opinions/reports to the authorities of Mines and Geology Department within two weeks from today.

No costs.

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE

AHB

Sri M G Shivashankraswamy v. the Senior Geologist

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M G Shivashankraswamy v. the Senior Geologist

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P Veerabhadra Vs the Deputy Director

Sri Annadurai K Vs the Govt of India

G. Sudhakar Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

M/S. Drn Infrastructure Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Shree Venkateshwara Stone Crusher Vs State of Karnataka

Sri R Manjuanth Vs the State of Karnataka