Disposed

Sri. S. R. Shravan v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Jul 2019WP/32748/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging a direction to abandon a stone crushing licence. It accepted the State's proposal to issue a show-cause notice for cancellation, noting the temporary nature of the impugned order would subside upon that final decision.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of on the State's proposal to issue a show-cause notice for cancellation of the licence.

Sri. S. R. Shravan Vs State of Karnataka — Environment and Pollution | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^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 WRIT PETITION NO.32748 OF 2018 (GM-MM-S)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI S.R.SHRAVAN AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS S/O SRI.S.R.RAVISHANKAR RESIDING AT NO.80 FIRST FLOOR, 1^ST MAIN ROAD CHAMARAJPET BENGALURU – 560 018

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT.ROHINI K.M., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶13

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

¶15

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

¶16

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT AND

¶17

CHAIRMAN DISTRICT STONE CRUSHER LICENSING AND REGULATORY AUTHORITY BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT

¶18

BANGALORE

¶19

SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY 13^TH FLOOR, V.V.TOWER AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE ... RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SHRI D.NAGARAJ, AGA)

¶21

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ANNEXURE-A DATED 8.6.2018 ANNEXURE-B DATED 4.7.2018 AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶26

A licence was granted to the petitioner for stone crushing. By the impugned endorsement dated 8^th June 2018, the petitioner was directed to abandon the crusher. The challenge in this petition is firstly, on the ground that the Senior Geologist had no power to issue a direction to abandon the crusher. Secondly, the submission is that such an endorsement could not have been issued during subsistence of the licence.

¶27

The learned Additional Government Advocate, on instructions, states that the State Government proposes to issue a notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why the licence should not be cancelled. He states that the notice will

¶28

¶29

be issued and an appropriate decision will be taken within a period of three weeks from today.

¶30

It is obvious that as soon as an order is passed on the show cause notice, the order impugned which is of a temporary nature will merge into the order passed on the show cause notice.

¶31

By accepting the aforesaid statements of the learned Additional Government Advocate, we dispose of the petition. We, however, make it clear that on the failure of the State Government to pass appropriate orders on the show-cause notice within a reasonable period, it will be open for the petitioner to file a fresh petition for challenging the impugned order.

¶32

All contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶33

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

AHB

Sri. S. R. Shravan v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. S. R. Shravan 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

Umashankar K.V. Vs the Government of Karnataka

Smt. v. Girija Vs the State Bank of India

Karnataka Sponge Iron Manufacturers Vs Union of India

Sri Ayyappa Naik Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Srinivasa Alias Shrinivasa Vs Chief Personnel Officer

The Gomala Samrakshana Samithi Vs the State of Karnataka