Dismissed

Sri B S Madhe Gowda v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Jul 2018WP/29839/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the prolonged pendency of an application for a quarrying lease. The court directed the respondent authorities to consider the application and take a final decision within 90 days of receiving the certified copy of the order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Senior Geologist to consider the application and take a final decision within 90 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Sri B S Madhe Gowda Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

W.P.No.29839/2018

¶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.29839 OF 2018 (GM-MM-S)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI B S MADHE GOWDA S/O SRI SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT BUPASANDRA, MANDYA DISTRICT – 577 101.

¶12

... PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI.GANAPATHY BHAT VAJRALLI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶16

REPRESENTED BY ITS

¶17

CHIEF SECRETARY,

¶18

VIDHANA SOUDHA,

¶19

DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VIDHI,

¶20

BENGALURU – 560 001

¶21

THE SECRETARY COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶22

THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, KHANIJA BHAVAN, BENGALURU – 560 001

¶23

THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR – 577 101.

¶24

... RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI.VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)

W.P.No.29839/2018

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR APPROPRIATE OR ORDER CONSIDERING THE PETITIONER APPLICATION DTD. 30.01.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PENDING BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO.4 IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY WITHIN TIME FRAME PERIOD AND ETC.

¶30

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

¶31

ORDER

¶32

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

¶33

Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant aspects of the present matter are that the petitioner herein is stating grievance that he made an application for grant of quarrying lease/licence for quarrying building stone over an extent of 3.00 acres of land in survey No.318 at Bandihalli village, Kunigal Taluk, Tumakuru District, on 30.01.2014. Since the application of the petitioner was kept pending, he filed W.P.No.41801/2015 seeking direction to dispose of the same. On 30.09.2015, the said writ petition came to be disposed of with a direction to the authorities concerned to consider and dispose of the application filed by the writ petitioner; pursuant whereof, the endorsement dated 13.11.2015 was issued,

¶34

W.P.No.29839/2018

¶35

¶36

again keeping the application pending awaiting the orders by the Government. The petitioner challenged the said endorsement in W.P.Nos.54820-54821/2015, which came to be disposed of by the order dated 10.12.2015 directing the authorities concerned to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner irrespective of pendency of the proposed amendment to the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994. In spite of such orders by this Court, the application of the petitioner has not been disposed of as yet.

¶37

Learned HCGP is not in a position to dispute the facts as asserted on the petition that the application made by the petitioner has indeed remained pending for all this time.

¶38

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.

¶39

For what has been observed hereinabove, this petition stands disposed at this stage itself with the requirement that the respondent No.4 – Senior Geologist, Department of Mines and Geology, Tumkuru District shall consider the application made by the petitioner on 30.01.2014 and shall take final

¶40

W.P.No.29839/2018

¶41

¶42

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.

¶43

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

AHB

Sri B S Madhe Gowda v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri B S Madhe Gowda 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. Sharath Kumar v R Vs State of Karnataka

K v Sudhakara Gupta Vs K G Pattabhi Ram

Raichur Vikasa Parishad Vs State of Karnataka

H S Muniraju Vs the Secretary

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

The State of Karnataka Vs Smt. Bhathyamma