Disposed

Karnataka Sponge Iron Manufacturers v. Union of India

Karnataka HC8 Jul 2019WP/43273/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the discriminatory non-grant of permissions to sell iron ore fines. The Court held that a writ cannot be issued to frame a policy and directed the State Government to consider representations within three months without adjudicating rights.

What did the court decide?

The State Government shall consider the representations made by the petitioner and take appropriate decision within a period of three months from today.

Karnataka Sponge Iron Manufacturers Vs Union of India — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY, 2019

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

AND

¶7

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

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 43273/2017 & WRIT PETITION NOS. 45821-45860/2017 (GM-MM-S)

¶9

BETWEEN

¶10

KARNATAKA SPONGE IRON MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION (REGISTERED) NO.39/1B/27-A, BLOCK NO.7 PARVATHINAGAR, TALUR ROAD BALLARI – 583103, BY ITS PRESIDENT CUM AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY

¶11

... PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI X M JOSEPH, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND

¶14

1.UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF STEEL GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ROOM NO. 291 UDYOG BHAVAN NEW DELHI - 110001 BY ITS SECRETARY

¶15

2.SECRETARY MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT & FOREST FOREST CONSERVATION DIVISION GOVERNMENT OF INDIA PARYAWARAN BHAVAN

¶16

¶17

CGO COMPLEX, LODI ROAD NEW DELHI - 110003

¶18

3.STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560001

¶19

4.CENTRAL EMPOWERED COMMITTEE 2ND FLOOR, CHANAKYA BHAVAN CHANAKYAPURI, NEW DELHI - 110021 BY ITS CHAIRMAN

¶20

THE MONITORING COMMITTEE KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560001 BY ITS CONVENER FOR AUCTION MONITORING COMMITTEE

¶21

6.THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY 4TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE - 560001

¶22

7.NATIONAL MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE) REGISTERED OFFICE: KANIJA BHAVAN 10-03-311/A, CASTLE HILLS MASAB TANK, HYDERABAD - 500028 BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶23

8.MYSORE MINERALS LIMITED GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING NO.39, 1ST FLOOR NEAR PUBLIC UTILITY BUILDING SHANTHLANAGAR ASHOKNAGAR

¶24

¶25

BANGALORE - 560001 BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶26

... RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SMT. H R ANITHA, CGC FOR R-1 & 2; SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP FOR R-3 & 6; SRI RICAB CHAND, ADVOCATE FOR R-4; SRI M KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-5; SRI MOHAMMED RIZWAN AHAMED, ADVOCATE FOR R-7; SRI A K VASANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R-8)

¶28

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE AS DISCRIMINATORY THE NON-GRANT BY RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 6, NECESSARY PERMISSIONS TO SELL IRON ORE FINES ACCUMULATED IN SPONGE IRON UNITS SITUATED IN BELLARY WHILE ALL OTHER UNITS IN KARNATAKA ARE GRANTED NECESSARY PERMISSION AND ETC.

¶29

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

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus in terms of prayer clauses (A) to (K). Perusal of the prayers will show that virtually, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus enjoining the respondents to frame a particular policy. A writ sought for in the petitions cannot be issued in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶32

¶33

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶34

submits that the State Government be directed to consider the representations made by the petitioner.

¶35

3. Accordingly, we dispose of the petitions by passing the following order:

¶36

(i) The State Government shall consider the representations made by the petitioner and take appropriate decision within a period of three months from today;

¶37

(ii) We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the rights claimed by the petitioner;

(iii) No costs.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE

bkv

Karnataka Sponge Iron Manufacturers v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Sponge Iron Manufacturers v. Union of India

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 C S Pattanashetty Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. H K Lokesh Vs State of Karnataka

M/S. Srinivasa Granites Vs the State of Karnataka

Umashankar K.V. Vs the Government of Karnataka

Smt. v. Girija Vs the State Bank of India

Sri Muniraju Vs Sri Sheik Hyder