Disposed

Jayaprakash Shetty v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Oct 2021WP/12037/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that respondents cannot suspend quarrying activities during the subsistence of a valid mining lease merely because the petitioner quarried minerals outside the lease area. The Court directed the authorities to issue MDP for lawfully excavated minerals.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondent No.4 to consider the petitioner's case for issuing MDP in respect of minerals lawfully excavated from the lease area; respondents at liberty to recover penalty.

Jayaprakash Shetty Vs State of Karnataka — Environment and Pollution | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 12037 OF 2020(GM-MM-S)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

JAYAPRAKASH SHETTY S/O SHIVARAM SHETTY, AGED 54 YEARS, CHERKADI VILLAGE, HARKURU POST-576 223 KUNDAPURA TALUKA, UDUPI UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI.R.G.KOLLE, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

THE SECRETARYA TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

¶16

THE DIRECTOR AND COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶17

THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY RAJATADRI, MANIPAL, UDUPI-576 104

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.S.S.MAHENDRA, AGA)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT TO QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY R-4 SENIOR GEOLOGIST DTD.03.12.2019 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM J ., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The captioned writ petition is filed questioning the final notice dated 3.12.2019 issued by respondent No.4 imposing penalty five times of royalty and consequently directing the present petitioner to stop quarrying activities with immediate effect. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus to restore quarry lease at QL No.264.

¶24

The facts leading to the case are as under:

¶25

¶26

The authorities have granted quarry lease in favour of the petitioner at QL.No.264/R-1 to extract ordinary building stone in Government land bearing Survey No.130/1P1 of 33 Shiroor village in Udupi Taluk and District for a period of 20 years. The respondent No.4 issued a show-cause notice alleging illegal quarry of 26,934 MT outside the quarry lease area. The respondent No.4 has imposed penalty five times of royalty and has suspended quarrying activities. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned final notice, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA.

¶28

It is stated across Bar that the controversy in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.2167821679/2019 disposed of on 30.05.2019.

¶29

¶30

We have perused the grounds urged in the present

¶31

writ petition and also the materials produced along with the writ petition. The controversy in question is squarely covered by the judgment cited supra. Para 7 of the judgment cited supra reads as follows:

¶32

" 7. So long as the mining lease is valid and subsisting, the respondents cannot refuse to issue MDP in respect of minerals lawfully excavated by the petitioner from the leased area. Only on the ground that there is a demand for penalty and that a show cause notice of cancellation has been issued, MDP in respect of minerals lawfully excavated on the basis of subsisting lease cannot be denied.

¶33

On a plain reading of the observations/finding recorded by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court, we are of the view that the petitioner, whose case is identical with the facts of the aforesaid case, is also entitled to the reliefs granted in the aforesaid judgment. It is not in dispute that the mining lease in favour of the petitioner is valid and subsisting. Therefore, the respondents cannot suspend quarrying activities during subsistence of mining lease. The authorities

¶34

¶35

are required to issue MDP only in respect of lawfully excavated mineral and issuance of MDP in respect of lawfully excavated mineral from the area which is the subject matter of lease would not come in the way of the respondents in taking appropriate action for cancellation of lease, if grounds for cancellation are made out. The respondents on the premise that petitioner has quarried building stone outside the quarry

¶36

lease area cannot suspend quarrying activities.

¶37

For the foregoing reasons, we pass the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

(i) The writ petition is disposed of.

¶40

(ii) We direct respondent No.4 to consider

¶41

the case of the petitioner for issuing MDP in respect of minerals lawfully excavated from the lease area that is the subject-matter of lease bearing QL.No.264/R-1 over an area of 00.70 acres in Sy.No.130/1P1 of 33 Shiroor Village in Udupi Taluk and District.

¶42

¶43

(iii) The respondent authorities are at liberty to recover the penalty determined under the impugned final notice as per Annexure-A in accordance with law.

¶44

(iv) The pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶45

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶46

Sd/ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

*alb/-.

Jayaprakash Shetty v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayaprakash Shetty 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S B Eshwara Stone Crusher Vs the Deputy Director

Smt. M Shashikala Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri a C Shivalinge Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka

North Kanara District Forest Land Rights Vs the State of Karnataka

Viswapriya Investors and Depositors Welfare Association Karnataka Vs State of Karnataka

Sri K S Aravind Vs State of Karnataka