Dismissed

H S Muniraju v. the Secretary

Karnataka HC17 Jul 2018WP/29611/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chief Justice Maheshwari disposed the writ petition at the preliminary stage, quashing an order rejecting the petitioner's quarrying lease application. directing authorities to obtain necessary clearances and reports and decide the application within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 07.04.2018 quashed; authorities directed to send views/reports within two weeks and decide the application within four weeks.

H S Muniraju Vs the Secretary — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

W.P.No.29611/2018

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JULY, 2018

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.DEVDAS

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO.29611 OF 2018 (GM-MM-S)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

H S MUNIRAJU S/O LATE SUBBANNA AGED 56 YEARS, R/O UTTANAHALLI VILLAGE CHIKKAJALA POST BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT

¶12

... PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI.SHIVAKUMAR K.B., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE SECRETARY INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE DEPT. VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001

¶16

THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY MINERALS DIVISION CHIKKABALLAPURA – 562 101

¶17

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPURA – 562 105

¶18

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT, CHIKKABALLAPURA – 562 105

¶19

... RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)

¶21

W.P.No.29611/2018

¶22

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A IN PROCEEDINGS DTD:7.4.2018 PASSED BY THE R-2 AND ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioner herein states the grievance against the order dated 07.04.2018 (Annexure-A) for rejection of his application for grant of quarrying lease.

¶27

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:

¶28

“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:-

¶29

“5. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that this Court in Writ Petition No.25421/2017 (DD 04.07.2017) and

¶30

W.P.No.29611/2018

¶31

¶32

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.”

¶33

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:

¶34

“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.

¶35

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.

¶36

No costs.”

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.No.29611/2018

¶39

¶40

rejected. We find no reason to take any different view of the matter.

¶41

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.

¶42

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.

¶43

No costs.”

¶44

Perusal of the record makes out that in this matter in fact the approach of the authorities concerned in taking the petitioner as being ineligible was disapproved by an earlier order dated 20.09.2017, as passed in W.P.No.43075/2017, whereby the authorities concerned were directed to reconsider the application of the writ petitioner. The authorities concerned have, however, chosen to reject the application again, while taking the petitioner ineligible for want of NOC before 12.08.2016. Even from the other aspects indicated in the impugned order dated 07.04.2018, it is difficult to cull out a definite and categorical finding as to why the application of the petitioner was being rejected.

¶45

W.P.No.29611/2018

¶46

¶47

Thus, in parity with the orders passed in relation to the other similarly circumstanced applicants, it appears appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with similar orders while disapproving the impugned order dated 07.04.2018.

¶48

Accordingly, this writ petition is 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

AHB

Sd/JUDGE

H S Muniraju v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H S Muniraju v. the Secretary

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

Sri. Sharath Kumar v R Vs State of Karnataka

K v Sudhakara Gupta Vs K G Pattabhi Ram

Raichur Vikasa Parishad Vs State of Karnataka

Sri B S Madhe Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S C C I Ltd., Vs the Deputy Labour Commissioner

The State of Karnataka Vs Smt. Bhathyamma