Partly allowed

M/S Srinidhi Enterprises v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Feb 2021WP/11700/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka set aside orders rejecting a stone crusher license application for a deceased licensee's family. The court held that with valid environmental clearance, no further license rejection was warranted. It directed the authority to dispose of a fresh application within a month if renewed clearance is obtained, leaving the forest status issue open.

What did the court decide?

Annexures A and B set aside; petitioner directed to seek fresh Consent for Operation; Licensing Authority to decide on further application within one month.

M/S Srinidhi Enterprises Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.11700/2020 (GM-MM-S)

¶8

BETWEEN

¶9

M/S. SRINIDHI ENTERPRISES DOOR NO.1-127/2, TEMPLE ROAD BELMAN VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT – 574 111 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI DINESH SHETTY S/O SUNDER SHETTY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT HOSAMANE, SOODA VILLAGE KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT – 574 244

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI GIRISH M K, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND

¶13

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001

¶14

2 . THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY NO.49, RACE COURSE ROAD

KHANIJA BHAVANA

BENGALURU – 560 001

3 . DISTRICT STONE CRUSHER LICENSING AND REGULATION AUTHORITY RAJATHADRI, UDUPI – 576 104 REP. BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND THE CHAIRMAN

¶19

4 . DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST KUNDAPURA DIVISION UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 201

¶20

5 . SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY RAJATHADRI A BLOCK MANIPAL, UDUPI DISTRICT UDUPI – 576 104

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, AGA)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISTRICT STONE CRUSHER LICENSING AND REGULATION AUTHORITY, THE RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED 27.06.2019 INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO THE APPLIED LAND MEASURING ONE ACRE IN SY.NO.133/P1 OF SOODA VILLAGE AT RESOLUTION NO.4 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Issue notice. The learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents. Considering the narrow controversy involved in the petition, the same is forthwith taken up for final disposal.

¶28

An application was made on 10^th September 2013 by the petitioner for grant of a licence in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 (for short “the said Act of 2011”). On the basis of the said application, the procedure under Section 4 of the said Act of 2011 was followed and a Certificate of Consent of Safer Zone in Form B1 was issued to the petitioner in accordance with subsection (3) of Section 4 read with sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Rules, 2012 (for short “the said Rules”). On the basis of Form B1, the petitioner applied for grant of Consent for Operation (for short “CFO”) to the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (for short “the Pollution Control Board”) and on 17^th October 2015, CFO was granted for a period of five years. It appears that thereafter the application

¶29

¶30

made by the petitioner was placed before the Licensing Authority within the meaning of Clause (f) of Section 2 of the said Act of 2011. By the proceedings at Annexure-A, the Licensing Authority directed that the application for licence made by the petitioner shall be considered only after obtaining opinion/approval of the Forest Department. By the letter dated 18^th September 2019, the Forest Department communicated to the Senior Geologist that the area in respect of which the licence was sought is situated in a deemed forest area.

¶31

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment and order dated 14^th July 2020 in W.P.No.5144/2020 and the judgment and order dated 16^th June 2020 in W.P.No.50855/2019 passed by this Court.

¶32

The learned Additional Government Advocate has

¶33

opposed the petition.

¶34

We have considered the submissions. We have

¶35

perused the provisions of the said Act of 2011 and the said Rules.

¶36

As noted earlier, in this case, the Certificate of Consent of Safer Zone in Form B1 has been already issued in the year 2015 in accordance with sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the said Act of

¶37

¶38

Under sub-section (2) of Section 6-A of the said Act of 2011, it is provided that the Licensing Authority, on production of CFO issued by the Pollution Control Board, shall grant a licence to the applicant subject to the conditions incorporated therein.

¶39

This Court has already held that the concept of “deemed forest” is a non-existing concept. The law is that a land which is a “forest” within the meaning of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (for short “the said Act of 1980”) cannot be used for non-forest activities unless the consent of the Central Government is obtained. In fact, without the prior approval of the Central Government, any non-forest activities in the area of “forest” within the meaning of Section 2 of the said Act of 1980 cannot be carried out. Therefore, even if a licence is granted to the petitioner under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act of 2011, if the land is covered by the concept of “forest”, notwithstanding the grant of the licence, the crushing activity can be commenced by the petitioner only after a consent as required by Section 2 of the said Act of 1980 is granted by the Central Government.

¶40

¶41

In view of sub-section (2) of Section 6-A of the said

¶42

Act of 2011, after the Certificate of Consent of Safer Zone was issued to the petitioner and after CFO was produced by the petitioner, there was no occasion for the Licensing Authority to have rejected the application for grant of licence.

¶43

However, it is noticed that now, with the passage of time, CFO has expired and therefore, the petitioner will have to apply either for grant of a fresh CFO or for extending the validity of CFO already granted. Hence, we pass the following order:

¶44

(i) Annexures-A and B are set aside only insofar

¶45

as the petitioner is concerned;

¶46

(ii) It will be open for the petitioner to apply to the Pollution Control Board for grant of a fresh CFO or for renewal of CFO granted on 17^th October 2015;

¶47

(iii) If the petitioner produces a fresh CFO or an extended CFO, the case of the petitioner shall be immediately placed before the Licensing Authority in accordance with sub-section (2) of

¶48

¶49

Section 6-A of the said Act of 2011. The Licensing Authority shall take an appropriate decision on the application within a period of one month from the date on which the case is placed before it;

¶50

(iv) The issue whether the land subject matter of the application made by the petitioner falls within the concept of “forest” under Section 2 of the said Act of 1980 is left open to be decided by the Appropriate Authority in accordance with law;

¶51

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

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

bkv

M/S Srinidhi Enterprises v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Srinidhi 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri B Shanthakumar Vs Shri Ravindra D C

Smt Manjula a Vs Sri Mahadeva

M/S. Sna Stone Crusher Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State Government of Karnataka

Smt Nandamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Noor Mohammed Vs Dr. Nagaraj

Malpe Trwal Boat (370) Menugarar Tandeler Sangaha (R) Vs Union of India