High Court of Karnataka quashed orders cancelling a quarrying lease, holding that a 2014 document styled as a partnership deed was a reconstitution and not a fresh firm, thus no violation of rules occurred.
Writ petition allowed; impugned orders dated 27.08.2016 and 27.11.2015 quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF JULY, 2019
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO.48547 OF 2016 (GM-MM-S)
BETWEEN
M/s.Srinivasa Granites, A Partnership Firm, Represented by its Partner Mr.G.Dayananda, Aged 50 years, Having its registered office at # 619/G, 2nd Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore – 560 010. ... Petitioner
(By Sri.B.S.Prakash, Advocate)
AND
2
(By Sri.V.G.Bhanu Prakash, AGA)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 27.08.2016 passed by the Prl. Secretary to Government, Commerce & Industries Department, (M.S.M.E. and Mines) in Revision No.CI 97 MRC 2015 and the order passed by the Director, Department of Mines & Geology, dated 27.11.2015 and etc.
������������������������������������������������������� �������� ������� ��� ���� ��������������� ����� ������ ���������������������������������������������
ORDER
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India challenging the order dated 27th November 2015 passed
by the second respondent cancelling the quarrying lease granted in favour of the petitioner and the order dated 27th August 2016 passed by the first respondent confirming the order passed by the second respondent.
3
4
Pursuant to the said show-cause notice, the petitioner has given a detailed reply as per Annexure-K dated 22nd June 2015. The second respondent, by order dated 27th November 2015 has determined the quarrying lease No.353. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed a revision petition before the first respondent. The first respondent, by order dated 27th August 2016 has confirmed the order passed by the second respondent. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, petitioner has preferred this writ petition.
5
respondents is in favour of the partnership firm; the petitioner has not violated the provisions of Rule 19-A of the said Rules; they have neither formed a new partnership firm nor transferred their lease to any other person, but the authorities, without considering the documents produced by the petitioner properly, cancelled the quarrying lease. Hence, sought for allowing the writ petition.
perused the writ papers.
6
7
to be seen. Annexure-H is very clear that this is a ‘reconstituted partnership deed’ and it is not a fresh partnership deed. Hence, the petitioner has not violated Rule 19-A of the said Rules. They have not sub-let, mortgaged or transferred the quarrying lease or any right, title and interest therein to any other persons. Hence, the respondent Authority is not justified in determining the lease bearing No.353/2000 granted in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned orders are unsustainable. Accordingly, we pass the following order:
We allow the writ petition by quashing the impugned order dated 27th August 2016 passed by the first respondent as per Annexure-A and the order dated 27th November 2015 passed by the second respondent as per Annexure-B.
Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/JUDGE
Cm/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the reconstitution of the partnership deed in 2014 constituted a fresh partnership firm in violation of Rule 19-A.
Whether the orders cancelling the quarrying lease and confirming the cancellation were sustainable.
M/s. Srinivasa Granites
State of Karnataka
Director/Commissioner, Department of Mines & Geology
Deputy Director, Department of Mines & Geology
Abhay S. Oka
H.T. Narendra Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
