Disposed

M/S G.T.B.Enterprises v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Nov 2020WP/31594/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions challenged orders restricting stone crusher operations due to alleged proximity to Bannerghatta National Park. The court held that impugned orders became inoperative upon the issuance of the final Eco Sensitive Zone notification and remitted the matter for fresh examination.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders were declared inoperative; respondents directed to examine sites against the final notification declared on 11th March 2020.

M/S G.T.B.Enterprises Vs the State of Karnataka — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

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

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.31594 OF 2018 (GM-MM-S) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.32097 OF 2018 (GM-MM-S)

¶8

IN WP.NO.31594/2018

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

M/S.G.T.B.ENTERPRISES, NO.233 THAMMANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE THAMMANAYAKANAHALLI POST KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 106 REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI B.T.NAGARAJ REDDY ... PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI GANAPATHY BHAT VAJRALLI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001

¶14

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY VIDHANA SOUDHA DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001

¶15

¶16

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOREST VIDAHANA SOUDHA DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI

¶17

BENGALURU-560 001

¶18

THE LICENSING AUTHORITY/

¶19

PRESIDENT AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT STONE CRUSHER LICENSING AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU-560 001

¶20

THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN

¶21

BENGALURU-560 001

¶22

THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DPEARMTENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT

¶23

V.V.TOWER

¶24

DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI

¶25

BENGALURU-560 001

¶26

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST BANNERGHATTA NATIONAL PARK BANNERGHATTA

¶27

BENGALURU-560 083

¶28

THE RANGE OFFICER ANEKAL WILDLIFE RANGE ANEKAL TALUK

¶29

BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 106

¶30

... RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI I.THARANATH POOJARY)

¶32

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY APPROPRIATE ORDER QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08.06.2018 (ANNEXURE-K) ISSUED BY THE SIXTH RESPONDENT AND ETC.

¶34

¶35

IN WP.NO.32097/2018

¶36

BETWEEN:

¶37

M/S.SREE CHAKRA ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES NO.337, HULIMANGALA VILLAGE HULIMANGALA POST, JIGANI HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 106 REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI B.SRINIVAS REDDY ... PETITIONER (BY SRI GANAPATHY BHAT VAJRALLI, ADVOCATE)

¶38

AND:

¶39

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY

¶40

VIDHANA SOUDHA DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI

¶41

BENGALURU-560 001

¶42

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY VIDHANA SOUDHA

¶43

DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI

¶44

BENGALURU-560 001

¶45

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOREST VIDAHANA SOUDHA DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI

¶46

BENGALURU-560 001

¶47

THE LICENSING AUTHORITY/ PRESIDENT AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT STONE CRUSHER LICENSING AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT

¶48

BENGALURU-560 001

¶49

THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN BENGALURU-560 001

¶50

¶51

THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DPEARMTENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT

¶52

V.V.TOWER DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI

¶53

BENGALURU-560 001

¶54

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST BANNERGHATTA NATIONAL PARK

¶55

BANNERGHATTA

¶56

BENGALURU-560 083

¶57

THE RANGE OFFICER ANEKAL WILDLIFE RANGE

¶58

ANEKAL TALUK

¶59

BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 106

¶60

... RESPONDENTS

¶61

(BY SRI I.THARANATH POOJARY)

¶62

¶63

¶64

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶67

and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶68

These matters are taken up for final disposal.

¶69

3. In WP.No.31594/2018, there are basically three

¶70

challenges. The first challenge is to the order dated

¶71

¶72

08^th June 2018 (Annexure-K). By that order, a licence granted to the petitioner under Section 3 of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 (for short, ‘the said Act of 2011’) was ordered to be kept in abeyance. Annexure-K refers to a letter received from the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Bannerghatta National Park, Bengaluru calling upon the Senior Geologist to conduct joint inspection. The second challenge is to Annexure-L dated 30^th July 2019. It is alleged that the area in which stone crusher licence is being operated, is covered by draft notification dated 15^th June 2016 declaring eco sensitive zone of Bannerghatta National Park. Therefore, the petitioner was called upon to stop crushing activity till the submission of NOC from the National Board of Wildlife. The last order under challenge is Annexure-M by which petitioner was directed to stop the crushing activity till the submission of a clearance from the Standing Committee of National Board of Wildlife. There is a reference in the said order to the violation of the licence conditions.

¶73

As far as WP.No.32097/2018 is concerned, the facts are similar. The only difference is that the challenge is to the orders of Annexures-L, M and N. Annexure-M is more or less

¶74

¶75

identical to Annexure-M in WP.No.31594/2018. Thus, all the three orders appear to proceed on the footing that though safer zone has been declared in accordance with Section 6 of the said Act of 2011, the area of the stone crushers units of the petitioners falls within the eco sensitive zone of Bannerghatta National Park as per the draft notification published by the Government of India.

¶76

Though we called upon the learned Additional Government Advocate to show specific allegations of breach of terms and conditions of the licences by the petitioners, no such specific factual allegations are pointed out. Now, it is an admitted position that the eco sensitive zone of Bannerghatta National Park has been declared by the final notification dated 11^th March 2020.

¶77

As the only ground in the three orders which are the subject matter of challenge is that the site of the stone crusher units falls within the eco sensitive zone of Bannerghatta National Park as per the draft notification and as now the final notification has been issued, the impugned orders cannot be acted upon. If the sites or any part thereof on which stone

¶78

¶79

crushing units of the petitioners are included in the area covered by eco sensitive zone of Bannerghatta National Park under the notification dated 11^th March 2020, the respondents can always initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

¶80

Accordingly, we pass the following:

¶81

ORDER

¶82

i) In view of the notification issued on 11^th March 2020 declaring eco sensitive zone of Bannerghatta National Park, the three impugned orders have become inoperative;

¶83

ii) The respondents will have to examine afresh whether the site of the stone crushing units of the petitioners fall within the eco sensitive zone as declared by the aforesaid notification;

¶84

iii) If the State Government finds that the site is within the boundaries of eco sensitive zone of Bannerghatta National Park as declared under the aforesaid notification, it is always open for the respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶85

¶86

iv) With the above direction, the petitions are disposed of.

¶87

v) The pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is disposed of.

¶88

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶89

Sd/JUDGE

¶90

M/S G.T.B.Enterprises v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S G.T.B.Enterprises 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

D. Gangappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Naveenchandra Jain Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Prashanth Kamath Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri B Raviprakash Vs Rajendra

M/S Sree Chakra Engineering Enterprises Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.S.Arunachalam Vs the State of Karnataka