Dismissed

Sri. Basappa Muthahalli v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Oct 2021WP/13226/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged notifications declaring certain lands as safer zones for stone crusher units, alleging violation of distance norms under the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011. The Court, relying on a joint inspection report confirming compliance with prescribed distances, dismissed the petition as devoid of merits.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Sri. Basappa Muthahalli Vs State of Karnataka — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.13226 OF 2020 (GM-MM-S-PIL)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

1 . SRI. BASAPPA MUTHAHALLI S/O LATE SRI HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O NO 104/2, H RANGAPURA VILLAGE, GANTEKANIVE, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT 577 228.

¶11

2 . SRI.K H LOKESH S/O LATE SRI HANUMANTHAPPA K R, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O MALALICHENNEHALLI, H RANGAPURA VILLAGE, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT 577 228.

¶12

3 . SRI. RAMESH

¶13

S/O SRI SIDDARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O NO 17, MALALICHENNEHALLI, H RANGAPURA VILLAGE, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT 577 228.

¶14

¶15

4 . SRI. H CHANDRAPPA S/O LATE HULIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O NO 32A, MALALICHENNEHALLI, H RANGAPURA VILLAGE, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT 577 228.

¶16

5 . SRI. C R MALLAPPA S/O M RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O BELENAHALLI, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT 577228.

¶17

6 . SRI. AYAZ KHAN AFRIDE S/O SIKANDAR KHAN AFRIDI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O NEW POST OFFICE ROAD, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT 577 228.

¶18

7 . SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA S T S/O THIMMAPPA, AGED AOBUT 58 YEARS, R/O RAMALINGESHWARA NILAYA, SHARAVATHI NAGAR A BLOCK, 8^TH CROSS, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 577 201.

¶19

8 . SRI. PALAKSHAPPA MAYAKONDA S/O SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/O SRINIVASA NILAYA, 5^TH MAIN, SIDDARUDANAGAR, BHADRAVATHI, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 577 301.

¶20

¶21

9 . (BY SR S	SRI. K SUBRAMANI S/O KALIMESTHRI, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/O NO 14, MALALICHENNEHALLI, H RANGAPURA VILLAGE, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT 577 228. ....PETITIONERS I. K.N.PHANINDRA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR MT. VAISHALI HEGDE., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 .	STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560 001.
2 .	THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM CHAIRMAN OF DISTRICT STONE CRUSHERS LICENSING AND REGULATION AUTHORITY, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT, CHIKKAMAGALUR 577 101.
3 .	THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TARIKERE SUB DIVISION, TARIKERE TALUK, 577228, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT.
4 .	THE TAHSILDAR TARIKERE TALUK, TARIKERE 577228, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT.
5 .	THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST MINERAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, CHIKKAMAGALUR 577 102.

¶22

¶23

6 . KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PARISARA BHAVAN, NO 49, CHURCH STREET, BANGALORE 560 001.

¶24

7 . SRI P BABU, PROPRIETOR, M/S R B INFRA STONE CRUSHER, R/O DEVAGIRI, LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA, TEMPLE STREET, ASWATH NAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA 577 203.

¶25

8 . D B MANJUNATH, PROPRIETOR, M/S MMS STONE CRUSHERS, R/O BRUNDHA ENTERPRISES, BEHIND SJM COLLEGE, OLD GALLIHALLI, DORANALU POST, TARIKERE TOWN, TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT 577129.

¶26

9 . K GAYATHRI, PROPRIETOR, M/S CHOWDESHWARI STONE CRUSHER, R/O KAVYA SHREE NILAYA, NO 25-C, T K ROAD, MADHAVANAGARA, OLD TOWN, BADRAVATHI,

¶27

SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 571 301.

¶28

….RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI. S.S. MAHENDRA., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-5 SRI. GURURAJ JOSHI., ADVOCATE FOR R-6 SRI. VIJETHA NAIK., ADVOCATE FOR R-7 SRI. K.B.NAVEEN KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-8 SRI. B.S. PRAKASH., ADVOCATE FOR R-9)

¶30

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DTD.22.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO DECLARING THE LAND BEARING SY NO.29 OF H.RANGAPURA VILLAGE AND SY NO.103 OF HURALIHALLI VILLAGE AS SAFER ZONE AND THE NOTIFICATION DTD.20.3.2018 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A1 AND ETC.

¶31

¶32

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 30.09.2021, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The captioned writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the Notifications dated 22.11.2018 and 20.03.2018 as per Annexures-A and A1 declaring the lands bearing Sy.Nos.29 and 32 of H.Rangapura Village and Sy.No.103 of Huralihalli Village as safer zone. The petitioners have also questioned the Certificate of Compliance issued by the respondent No.2 as per Annexures-B to D. The petitioners have also sought writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the authorities to carry out detailed study in regard to traffic load of proposed stone crusher plants by considering the representation submitted by the petitioners as per AnnexureE.

¶35

The authorities have granted permission to the respondent No.7 to establish a stone crusher plant. The

¶36

¶37

present writ petition is filed in the nature of public interest litigation. The grievance of the petitioners before this Court is that they are all agriculturists and are carrying their agricultural activities in the lands owned by them which are adjacent to the lands declared as safer zone for the purpose of establishment of stone crusher plant. The petitioners claim that, seeking redressal of their grievance, detailed representations were submitted to respondent Nos.2 to 6 as per Annexures-E, E1, E2, E3 and E4.

¶38

The petitioners contend that apart from agricultural lands, there are also certain habitations within close distance and therefore, the petitioners are strongly objecting industrial activity of stone crushing in the midst of agricultural lands. The petitioners apprehend that if permission is granted, the same would harm and damage the crops and would adversely affect the agricultural activities. On these set of grounds, the present writ petition is filed in the nature of public interest litigation to quash the Notifications as per Annexures-A and A1

¶39

¶40

declaring the subject matter of the present writ petition as safer zone.

¶41

The respondent Nos.1 to 5/State have filed

¶42

statement of objections and have stoutly denied the entire averments made in the writ petition. The respondents/State have specifically contended there is no substance in the allegations made against the petitioners. The

¶43

respondents/State have taken a specific contention that only after carrying out a joint spot inspection on 29.05.2018, the licensing authority has proceeded to declare the safer zone. The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) has also on inspection has issued consent for establishment pursuant to which respondent Nos.7 and 9 have commenced their construction of stone crushing unit. The respondents/State have also taken a contention that before issuing consent for operation, the KSPCB will look into pollution control measures that are to be taken by the applicant. In the event there is any damage to the crops, Rule 4 of the Karnataka Regulation

¶44

¶45

of Stone Crushers Rules, 2012 contemplates damages. The respondents/State have also taken a contention that survey was conducted by Geologist pursuant to complaint lodged by the petitioners and the Geologist has submitted a report and the KSPCB only after verifying the report has provided consent for establishment. Refuting the other grounds urged in the writ petition, the respondents/State have contended that there is approach road to all the three notified safer zones and additional conditions will be imposed to approach the road while transporting raw materials and finished products.

¶46

The respondent No.8 has filed statement of objections and has stoutly denied the entire averments made in the writ petition. The respondent No.8 has contended that the competent authority has issued certificate of compliance in Form-B1 for establishment and running of stone crusher plant by declaring the subject matter of petition lands as safer zone. The respondent No.8 has seriously disputed the contention of the petitioners that there are habitants within the vicinity of

¶47

¶48

the proposed establishment of stone crusher unit. The respondent No.8 has contended that the petitioners are having small farm houses and they are not used for dwelling purpose and the said fact clearly stands contradicted in the cause title itself from which it can be gathered that the petitioners are not residing in the lands abutting to the stone crusher unit. The respondent No.8 has also contended that the safer zone is far away from the village, hospital and schools and this fact can be gathered from the report of the PDO dated 22.11.2020.

¶49

The respondent No.8 contends that he has complied all the rules, regulations and procedure in securing a permission/licence from the concerned authority. The respondent No.8 to substantiate his claim has also relied on the 'No Objection Certificate' dated 06.10.2020 issued by the PDO, Village Panchayat. The respondent No.8 has countered the allegations in regard to transportation of minerals from safer zone and has contended that the stone crusher plant is only 500 meters away from the National Highway and

¶50

¶51

therefore, the apprehension of the petitioners that there is no road and therefore, the vehicular movement would cause immense damage to the crops and would also cause serious health hazards is misconceived.

¶52

Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the

¶53

petitioners, learned AGA for the State and learned counsel for the contesting respondents. Perused the records.

¶54

The grievance of the petitioners before this Court is

¶55

that the farm house of the petitioner No.1 is at a distance of 100 meters from the crusher unit constructed by respondent No.7 and houses of other petitioners/villagers are at a distance of 130 to 300 meters and therefore, the owners of the crusher units cannot be permitted to install a stone crusher unit which violates Section 6(1)(c) of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 (for short 'the Act of 2011'). Section 6(1)(c) imposes a condition that declaration of safer zone for stone crushers shall be subject to condition

¶56

¶57

that the said unit is at a distance of 500 meters from revenue village, temples and schools. The petitioners claim that the crusher unit set up by the respondents in fact falls within the prescribed distance under Section 6(1)(c) and therefore, the petitioners are seeking reliefs at the hands of this Court to quash the impugned notifications as per Annexures-A and A1.

¶58

Since there is a serious dispute in regard to the distance of the stone crusher units, this Court by order dated 25.02.2021 directed the respondent/State to place on record materials indicating as to whether the distance of 500 meters was measured from revenue village as defined under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 of Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Rules, 2012. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the Senior Geologist, Department of Mines and Geology Chikkamagaluru District conducted a fresh survey on 29.03.2021 and a compliance survey report was placed before this Court on 05.04.2021. The said Senior Geologist has sworn to an affidavit and the same is placed on record. In his

¶59

¶60

affidavit, he has stated on oath that the members of the District Stone Crushers Licensing and Regulation Authority, Chikkamagaluru i.e., Assistant Commissioner, Assistant Environmental Officer of KSPCB, Deputy Range Forest Officer and Forest Guard of Forest Department and also Senior Geologist, Department of Mines and Geology and Technical Staff, Assistant Director of Land Records and also Taluka Surveyor have conducted a spot inspection after notifying the petitioners and a joint inspection report dated 03.08.2021 is prepared.

¶61

On joint inspection, the officials have found that the crusher unit of respondent No.9 is at a distance of 1.5 kms. and the crusher area of respondent Nos.7 and 8 is at a distance of 1.3 kms from the boundary revenue village in terms of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 6. The affidavit sworn in by the authority also indicates that habitation area is at a distance of 520 meters from the applied

¶62

¶63

area of respondent No.9 and habitation area at a distance of 750 meters from applied area of respondent Nos.7 and 8.

¶64

If these significant details are taken into consideration, then we are of the view that the apprehension of the petitioners that the authorities have permitted the respondent Nos.7 to 9 to commence with stone crushing business in violation of the Rules is totally misconceived.

¶65

We have also given our anxious consideration to the survey sketch prepared by the Senior Geologist of Department of Mines and Geology which is produced along with the memo dated 15.03.2021. Even in the said sketch, it can be found that the crusher area is at a distance of 520 meters from the applied area of respondent No.9 and habitation area is at a distance of 750 meters from the applied crusher area of respondent Nos.7 and 8.

¶66

Though the petitioners have filed objections to the affidavit dated 25.08.2021, we are of the view that this Court

¶67

¶68

cannot entertain the objections. If a joint spot inspection is conducted comprising members of the District Stone Crushers Licensing and Regulation Authority, Chikkamagaluru i.e., Assistant Commissioner, Assistant Environmental Officer of KSPCB, Deputy Range Forest Officer and Forest Guard of Forest Department and also Senior Geologist, Department of Mines and Geology and Technical Staff, Assistant Director of Land Records and also Taluka Surveyor, this Court has to believe the joint inspection report in absence of clinching contrary material indicating violation of the provisions of Section 6 of the Act of 2011. We are not inclined to accept the averments made in the objections filed on behalf of petitioners to the affidavit dated 25.08.2021.

¶69

The material on record clearly demonstrates that the authorities after having conducted a joint inspection and also having verified the records by exercising power under Section 6 of the Act of 2011 have declared safer zone. The material on record also indicates that the KSPCB has issued

¶70

¶71

consent for establishment. The KSPCB even otherwise while issuing consent for operation would invariably look into all pollution control measures to be taken by the owners of the stone crushers.

¶72

Having perused the sketch which is placed on record along with memo dated 15.03.2021 and also having perused the detailed affidavit dated 25.08.2021 filed by the Senior Geologist, Department of Mines and Geology, Chikkamagaluru District, we do not find any violation of provisions of the Stone Crushers Act as well as the Rules. The impugned Notifications as per Annexures-A and A1 are in accordance with law and therefore, the grounds urged in the writ petition cannot be entertained.

¶73

Hence, we pass the following:

¶74

ORDER

¶75

The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is

¶76

accordingly dismissed.

¶77

¶78

No order as to costs.

¶79

The pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand

disposed of.

Sd/-

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE

Sri. Basappa Muthahalli v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Basappa Muthahalli 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rewabe Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri N Shivalingaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Jagadeesha M S Vs the State of Karnataka

D v Girish Vs Union of India

M/S B Eshwara Stone Crusher Vs the Deputy Director

Smt. M Shashikala Vs the State of Karnataka