Disposed

Sri Ayyappa Naik v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Jul 2019WP/7374/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought directions to withdraw a CRZ clearance letter and ensure future sand removal from River Sharavathi complies with legal requirements including CRZ clearance. The High Court of Karnataka directed authorities to ensure all legal requirements are met before issuing fresh licences. The case was disposed of without a full hearing.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to ensure all legal requirements including CRZ clearance and Sensitive Ecological Survey are complied with before issuing fresh licences for sand bar removal.

Sri Ayyappa Naik 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. 7374 / 2019 (GM-MM-S-PIL)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI AYYAPPA NAIK

¶9

S/O NAGESH NAIK

AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

R/AT MAVINAKURVA

DEVARAMOTE

HONNAVAR TALUK

UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT – 581 334

¶15

SRI MOHAN NAIK

¶16

S/O KRISHNA NAIK AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT VARNAKODA

¶17

GERUSOPPA, HONNAVAR TALUK

¶18

UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT – 581 384

¶19

... PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SHRI M.B. NARGUND, SR. ADVOCATE A/W SHRI ATHMA HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶23

REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001

¶24

¶25

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/ CHAIRMAN DISTRICT SAND MONITORING COMMITTEE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT KARWAR – 581 301

¶26

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR/ THE MEMBER SECRETARY DISTRICT SAND MONITORING COMMITTEE DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT KARWAR – 581 301

¶27

THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY KARNATAKA STATE COSTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (KSCZMA) FOREST, ENVIRONMENT AND ECOLOGY DEPARTMENT NO.448, 4^TH FLOOR, 2^ND GATE M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001

¶28

THE DIRECTOR MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001

¶29

THE MEMBER SECRETARY KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD NO.49, PARISARA BHAVAN 4^TH & 5^TH FLOOR, CHURCH STREET BENGALURU – 560 003

¶30

.... RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SHRI D. NAGARAJ, AGA FOR R1 TO R5; MS. POOJA BIYANI, ADVOCATE FOR SHRI K.M. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R6)

¶32

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO WITHDRAW THE CRZ CLEARANCE LETTER DATED 17.10.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-G IN RESPECT OF REMOVAL OF TWO SAND BARS FROM RIVER SHARAVATHI, HONNAVAR TALUK, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT AND ETC.

¶34

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

¶35

ORDER

¶36

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners states that now the licences/permits are valid only for a period of two months. He, therefore, submits that a direction be issued while granting fresh licences, the State Government should ensure that CRZ clearance is obtained and Sensitive Ecological Survey is conducted. He relies upon the representations made which are annexed to the petition from Annexure-M onwards.

¶37

It is obvious that when licences are granted for removal of sand bars, the concerned authority of the State Government must ensure that all lawful requirements are satisfied. If the grant of licence requires CRZ clearance and Sensitive Ecological Survey as a condition precedent, even the said requirements must be fulfilled.

¶38

¶39

Moreover, the representations made by the petitioners are required to be considered.

¶40

Accordingly, we dispose of the petition by directing that the respondents shall ensure that before issuing licence/permit for removal of sand bars from the river Sharavathi, Honnavar Taluk, Uttara Kannada District, all legal requirements are complied with. While considering the applications, the respondents shall take into consideration the grievances made in the representations which are annexed to the petition.

¶41

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

Sri Ayyappa Naik v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ayyappa Naik 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 Srinivasa Alias Shrinivasa Vs Chief Personnel Officer

The Gomala Samrakshana Samithi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. S. R. Shravan Vs State of Karnataka