Disposed

M/S Dhanalakshmi Stone Crusher v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Jul 2019WP/1580/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Challenging rejection of quarry lease applications for building stone to produce M-sand, the High Court upheld endorsements relying on minimum area rules. The Court observed the petitioner did not seek the specific statutory proviso allowing smaller areas and dismissed the petition but granted liberty to apply to the State Government for such powers. It directed the State to decide any future such

What did the court decide?

Petitions dismissed; liberty granted to petitioner to apply to State Government for exercise of powers under proviso to Rule 15-A; State directed to decide within two months.

M/S Dhanalakshmi Stone Crusher Vs State of… — Mining and Natural Resources | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JULY, 2019

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 1580 / 2019 & WRIT PETITION NO. 4519 / 2019 (GM-MMS)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

M/S. DHANALAKSHMI STONE CRUSHER REP. BY ITS PARTNER – T.L. RAJENDRAN AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS DHANALAXMI NILAYA 1^ST MAIN ROAD ADARSHA NAGAR TUMKUR – 572 106

¶10

... PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SHRI R. G. KOLLE, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND :

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU BENGALURU – 560 001

¶14

THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. DEPT. OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES VIKAS SOUDH, BENGALURU BENGALURU – 560 001

¶15

THE DIRECTOR & COMPETENT AUTHORITY DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY

¶16

¶17

KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001

¶18

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY GANDHINAGAR, TUMKURU TUMKURU – 572 102

¶19

.... RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SHRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)

¶21

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH OR SET ASIDE BOTH ENDORSEMENTS DATED 28.12.2018 ISSUED BY R- 3 DIRECTOR PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND B RESPECTIVELY, REJECTING BOTH QL APPLICATIONS DATED 02.02.2017 FILED BY THIS PETITIONER, SEEKING GRANT OF QUARRY LEASE/S TO EXTRACT ORDINARY BUILDING STONE TO PRODUCE ‘M-SAND’ (MANUFACTURED SAND) OVER AN AREA OF 4.00 ACRES AND 1.00 ACRES TOTALLY 5.00 ACRES IN GOVT. LAND SY.NO.25 OF THIPPANAHALLI VILLAGE IN TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C AND D RESPECTIVELY, ADOPTING ‘CLUSTER APPROACH’ IN TERMS OF PROVISO TO RULE 15-A (SCHEDULE II-A) AND ETC.

¶22

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the

¶25

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶26

¶27

The challenge in these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the endorsements dated 28^th December 2018 at Annexures-A and B. By the impugned endorsements, the applications made by the petitioner for grant of building stone quarry lease to produce ‘M’ sand over distinct areas of 4 acres and 1 acre respectively have been rejected by relying upon Entry 39 of Schedule II-A of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short ‘the said Rules’) read with sub-rule (1) of Rule 15-A thereof.

¶28

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is not disputing what is factually stated in the endorsements, but his case is that under the proviso to Rule 15-A, the State Government has a power to grant a lease over an area less than the minimum extent specified in Schedule II-A. He relies upon the recommendation made by the Deputy Director, Department of Mines and Geology (the respondent No.4).

¶29

The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing

¶30

for the respondents submits that there is nothing wrong in the

¶31

¶32

impugned endorsements/orders and the petitioner had not applied to the State Government for exercise of powers under the proviso to Rule 15-A.

¶33

We have considered the submissions. The areas in respect of which separate applications were made by the petitioner are admittedly less than what is provided in Entry 39 of Schedule II-A of the said Rules. Therefore, per se, there cannot be any flaw in the impugned endorsements.

¶34

It is true that under the proviso to Rule 15-A, there is a power vested in the State Government to grant a lease over an area less than the minimum extent specified in Schedule II-A subject to what is provided in the said proviso. However, the petitioner will have to apply to the State Government for exercise of the said power. If according to the case of the petitioner, there is already a recommendation made by the Deputy Director, the petitioner can always rely upon the same. Though no case is made out to interfere with the impugned endorsements, liberty will have to be granted to the petitioner to make an application to the State Government.

¶35

¶36

7. Accordingly, we pass the following order:

¶37

(i) Both the impugned endorsements are confirmed;

¶38

(ii) Notwithstanding the impugned endorsements, it will be always open for the petitioner to make an application to the State Government praying for the exercise of powers under the proviso to Rule 15-A under the said Rules;

¶39

(iii) If such an application is made, the State Government shall take appropriate decision thereon within a period of two months from the date on which the application is made;

¶40

(iv) The petitions are disposed of in the above terms.

¶41

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

M/S Dhanalakshmi Stone Crusher v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Dhanalakshmi Stone Crusher v. 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. Harisha Halli Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Rudramma Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Sri C Javaregowda Vs the Commissioner

Sri. Govindappa Vs Deputy Commissioner Revenue

Umapathi S Vs the State of Karnataka

Poojya Shri Siddhaling Swamiji Vs the Commissioner