Disposed

Sri Yankangouda v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Feb 2020WP/1637/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition seeking conversion of working permission into a quarrying licence under the Karnataka Minor Minerals Concessions Rules, 1994, directing the Senior Geologist to verify the application and validity before passing requisite orders.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Senior Geologist to verify application and validity; if valid, convert working permission into quarrying licence within one month.

Sri Yankangouda Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 03^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.1637 OF 2020 (GM-MMS)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI YANKANGOUDA S/O SANGANAGOUDA METIGOUDAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O TALKAL (AT AND POST) TQ YELBURGA, DISTRICT KOPPAL. ...PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR RAIKOTE, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU – 1.

¶14

THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU – 1.

¶15

THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT

¶16

KOPPA DISTRICT, KOPPAL - 584 112. ... RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI V.G. BHANUPRAKASH, AGA FOR RESPONDENTS)

¶18

¶19

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION BY ISSUING; a) WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 TO DISPOSE OF THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER AT ANNEXURE-B DATED 3-3-17 AND GRANT LICENSE TO THE PETITIONER TO CARRY OUT QUARRYING ACTIVITIES IN LAND SY NO.163/1, 163/5 AND 163/6 SITUATED IN TAVAREGRA VILLAGE OF KOPPAL DISTRICT AND ETC.

¶21

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶24

petitioner.

¶25

2. Issue notice to the respondents.

¶26

3. The learned Additional Government

¶27

Advocate takes notice for the respondents.

¶28

The petitioner is relying upon the working permission (Annexure-A), which was granted to him under the provisions of sub-Rule (1) of Rule 32 of the Karnataka Minor Minerals Concessions Rules, 1994 (for short `the said Rules of 1994’). Sub-Rule (1) of Rule

¶29

32 of the said Rules of 1994 after amendment made on

¶30

12^th August 2016 reads thus:

¶31

¶32

“32. Quarrying licence.-[(1)] No persons in possession of patta lands in Karnataka State and [in whose lands sub soil minor minerals are situated] shall undertake quarrying operation of minor minerals in patta land except with a [quarrying licence] granted under this chapter.

¶33

Explanation.- Patta land means any private land classified as patta land owned by pattadar [by] inheritance or acquired [through] ancestral property.]”

¶34

Prior to the said amendment, the word `working permission’ appeared in the place of quarrying licence. Due to this change, a specific provision was made in sub-Rule (11) of Rule 32 of the said Rules 1994, which reads thus:

¶35

“(11) All existing Working Permissions shall be converted into quarrying licences within a period of eighteen months from the commencement of these rules.”

¶36

As can be seen from Annexure-B, an

¶37

application was made by the petitioner for converting

¶38

working permission granted on 11^th August 2016 into quarrying licence in accordance with sub-Rule 11 of Rule 32 of the said Rules as amended on 12^th August 2016.

¶39

¶40

On instructions, the learned Additional

¶41

Government Advocate states that the application is still pending.

¶42

If as on the date of making application (Annexure-B), the working permission was valid and subsisting, the working permission ought to have been converted into a quarrying license as the application at

¶43

Annexure-B appears to have been made within a period of nine months from the date of 12^th August 2016 as provided in sub-Rule (11) of Rule 32 of the said Rule of 1994.

¶44

Therefore, as per mandate of sub-Rule (11) of Rule 32 of the said Rule of 1994, the application for conversion into quarrying licence ought to have been allowed.

¶45

Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition by passing the following order:

¶46

(i). The Senior Geologist, Department of Mines and Geology, Koppal is directed to verify whether the

¶47

¶48

application at Annexure-B was filed on 3^rd March 2017 and as on the date, whether working permission dated 11^th August 2016 was valid and subsisting;

¶49

(ii) If he finds that the application was filed on 3^rd March 2017 and as on that date, working permission dated 11^th August 2016 was valid and subsisting, within a period of one month from today, necessary orders shall be passed for converting working permission into quarrying licence within the meaning of sub-Rule (1) of Rule 32 of the said Rule 1994 as amended on 12^th August 2016.

¶50

(iii) With the above direction, the writ petition is

disposed of.

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

Bkm

Sri Yankangouda v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Yankangouda v. the 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 Paramesh R Vs Smt Lakshmi Devi

Sri M G Narayanaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Isak Usman Akodi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Shreesha S Udupa Vs the State of Karnataka

Cauvery Janma Bhoomi Trust (R) Vs State of Karnataka

New Baldwin High School Vs the State of Karnataka