Disposed

V Venkatakrishnappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Jun 2018WP/45043/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge disposed of a writ petition challenging the rejection of a quarrying lease application. Relying on recent precedents, the Court held that authorities must obtain required clearances before rejection and directed them to submit reports within two weeks and decide on the execution of the lease deed within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; authorities directed to send views/reports within two weeks and decide on execution of lease deed within four weeks. No costs.

V Venkatakrishnappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Mining and Natural Resources | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

W.P.No.45043/2017

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST 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.45043 OF 2017 (GM-MM-S)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

V.VENKATAKRISHNAPPA S/O LATE VENKATA REDDY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RAMAGANAPARTHI VILLAGE CHAIKKABALLAPURA TALUK & DIST. PIN – 562 101 ... PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI.M.J.ALVA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

¶15

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES (MSME & MINES)

¶16

VIKASA SOUDHA

¶17

BENGALURU – 560 001

¶18

THE DIRECTOR/COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES

¶19

& GEOLOGY

¶20

W.P.No.45043/2017

¶21

¶22

NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVANA RACE COURSE RAOD BENGALURU – 560 001

¶23

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY

¶24

NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVANA RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001

¶25

THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY

¶26

& CHAIRMAN (COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED UNDER RULE 11 OF KMMC RULES, 1994) VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001

¶27

THE CHAIRMAN & DY. COMMISSIONER DISTRICT TASK FORCE (MINES) COMMITTEE

¶28

CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT CHIKKABALLAPURA – 562 101 ... RESPONDENTS

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 14.07.2017 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY/ RESPONDENT NO.3 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A, AND ETC.

¶32

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

W.P.No.45043/2017

ORDER

The petitioner herein states the grievance against the endorsement dated 14.07.2017 (Annexure-A) for rejection of his application for grant of quarrying lease.

¶37

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 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:

¶38

“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:-

¶39

“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

¶40

W.P.No.45043/2017

¶41

¶42

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.”

¶43

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:

¶44

“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.

¶45

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.

¶46

No costs.”

¶47

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

¶48

W.P.No.45043/2017

¶49

¶50

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

¶51

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.

¶52

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.

¶53

No costs.”

¶54

The position aforesaid applies to the present case too.

¶55

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

¶56

The authorities concerned shall consider and finally decide on the prayer of the writ petitioner for execution of the

¶57

W.P.No.45043/2017

¶58

¶59

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

V Venkatakrishnappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V Venkatakrishnappa 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Deputy Commissioner Vs Sri. Basavaradhya

Mrs. Priya Mahesh Vs Sri v Venkataraju

Sri S K Amjed Basha Vs State of Karnataka

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