Quashed

Anand Doddamani v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Feb 2021WP/1152/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an endorsement denying mining permission to a leaseholder pending a crime investigation that was itself stayed. The court held the lease remains valid and operations cannot be halted solely due to offence registration, though termination proceedings remain open.

What did the court decide?

The impugned endorsement dated 23.12.2020 is quashed; the petitioner allowed to continue quarrying operations as long as the lease is valid.

Anand Doddamani Vs the State of Karnataka — Mining and Natural Resources | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 1152 OF 2021 (GM-MM-S)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

ANAND DODDAMANI S/O BHEEMANAGOWDA AGED 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O No.68, BEHIND CHETANA COLLEGE AKSHAYA COLONY HUBLI-580 021.

¶10

… PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SHRI DHIRAJ A.K, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (C & I) VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA & EX-OFFICIO CHAIRMAN DISTRICT SAND MONITORING COMMITTEE CHITRADURGA DISTRICT CHITRADURGA-577 501.

¶15

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY NEAR BASAPPA HOSPITAL

¶16

B.L.GOWDA LAYOUT CHITRADURGA-577 501.

¶17

¶18

… RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SHRI I.TARANATH POOJARY, AGA)

¶20

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 23.12.2020 ISSUED BY DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, CHITRADURGA-RESPONDENT No.3, COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-L, AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Notice was issued for final disposal on the last date.

¶25

The petitioner was granted a quarrying lease on 24^th

¶26

January, 2018 for a period of five years in respect of ordinary sand. He was granted the lease as he was the highest bidder as per the auction conducted under sub-rule (10) of Rule 31-T of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short, “the said Rules”). A copy of the lease agreement is annexed as Annexure-D. The challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to Annexure-L which is a communication issued by the

¶27

¶28

Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Chitradurga dated 23^rd December, 2020. By the said communication, the petitioner was informed that he cannot be permitted to commence the mining activities for the reason that a crime has been registered against him on 18^th May, 2019.

¶29

The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that as long as the lease is valid and subsisting, the permission for sand quarrying, storing and disposal as permissible by law cannot be denied.

¶30

The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State Government supported the impugned order.

¶31

We have considered the submissions. It is not in dispute that the quarrying lease granted to the petitioner, a copy of which is at Annexure-D, is valid and subsisting. Annexure-L shows that the petitioner has been prevented from carrying on quarrying operations on the ground that he has encroached upon an area outside the area of the quarrying lease and has violated the conditions in the draft quarrying plan. It is alleged that a First Information Report

¶32

¶33

has been registered. However, the impugned order itself records that the investigation pursuant to the First Information Report has been stayed.

¶34

If the case of the respondents is that the petitioner has committed breaches of the terms and conditions of lease or the said Rules, it will be always open for the State Government to adopt proceedings for termination of the lease in accordance with law. However, only on the ground of registration of an offence, the impugned order denying the petitioner permission to carry on quarrying operations is completely illegal.

¶35

Accordingly, we pass the following order:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

(i) The impugned endorsement/communication at Annexure-L dated 23^rd December, 2020 is hereby quashed and set aside;

¶38

(ii) However, this order will not prevent the respondents from initiating appropriate proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law;

¶39

¶40

(iii) We clarify that as of today, the petitioner cannot be

¶41

prevented from carrying on quarrying operations as long as the lease is valid and subsisting;

¶42

(iv) It will be always open for the petitioner to transport

¶43

the sand which is mined in accordance with law after obtaining a permission in accordance with law;

¶44

(v) The petition is allowed on the above terms.

¶45

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

vgh*

Anand Doddamani v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand Doddamani 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 Mallikarjunaiah B M Vs Sri Bhaskar Rao

Smt. Sujatha N G Vs Sri B G Srinivasa Prasad

Rajani Kulkarni Vs M/S. Diaamond Granites

Thirupathi Security Agency Vs Mr Maj. Gen. M.K. Sagoch

B K Ismail Vs Rajendra Kumar K v

Shri Manoo Urs Vs the 'a' Kharab Determining Committee