Partly allowed

M/S Bright Rocks and Minerals v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC29 Sept 2021WP/17432/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed an endorsement rejecting a stone crusher license renewal application. Directing the Licensing Authority to consider safer zone declaration based on a joint inspection report, the Court held rejection before securing pollution control consent violated the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011.

What did the court decide?

The impugned endorsement dated 31.03.2018 was quashed. The Licensing Authority was directed to consider the safer zone declaration based on the joint inspection report and decide the application withi

M/S Bright Rocks and Minerals Vs the State of… — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 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. 17432 OF 2021(GM-MM-S)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/S BRIGHT ROCKS AND MINERALS PERESANDRA, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562103 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI R MITHILESH, SON OF SRI RAGHAVENDRA REDDY AGED MAJOR

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI.PRAKASH B S, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES AND DEPARTMENT (MSME AND MINES), VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560001

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND LICENSING AUTHORITY

¶15

¶16

THE DISTRICT STONE CRUSHER LICENSING AND REGULATION AUTHORITY CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562103

¶17

THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST AND MEMBER SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING SIDDALAGHATTA ROAD CHIKKABALLAPUR - 562103

¶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 QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 31.03.2018 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST AND MEMBER SECRETARY, THE DISTRICT STONE CRUSHER LICENCING AND REGULATION AUTHORITY, BEARING NO.5595. THE COPY OF THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 31.03.2018 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST HAS BEEN 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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The captioned writ petition is filed questioning the endorsement dated 31.3.2018 issued by the Licensing Authority as per Annexure-"A" thereby rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner seeking renewal of licence to carry on the business of stone crushing.

¶25

The petitioner submitted an application 3.7.2015 to the 2^nd respondent in prescribed form for grant of licence to carry on the business of stone crushing over an extent of 2 acres in Survey No.11 of Jonnalakunte Village, Chikkaballapura Taluk, Chikkaballapur District. The petitioner contends that on receipt of the application submitted by the petitioner, the Licencing Authority caused joint inspection of the location as specified in sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as "Act").

¶26

¶27

The grievance of the petitioner is that though the authority has secured the joint inspection report recommending the area in question for declaration of safer zone which conforms to the conditions stipulated under Regulation 6 of the Act, the Licencing Authority has rejected the application by the impugned endorsement dated 31.3.2018 vide Annexure-A. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same is before this Court.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA.

¶29

It is stated across the Bar that the issue involved in

¶30

the present writ petition is no more res integra in the light of the judgment rendered by a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.38928/2019 disposed of on 8.6.2020.

¶31

We have perused the aforesaid judgment. Paragraph 9 would be useful for us to decide the present lis and accordingly, the same is culled out as follows:

¶32

¶33

"9. As we are not accepting the contention of the petitioner that safer zone was declared, the Licensing Authority will have to consider the issue of declaration of safer zone on the basis of joint inspection, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-D. If a safer zone is declared the petitioner will have to obtain consent for operation from the Karnataka Sate Pollution Control Board and only thereafter the application for license and be considered in accordance with Section 6-A of the said Act of 2011. The Licensing Authority has committed an error by rejecting the application even before the stage of declaration of safer zone was over."

¶34

If the impugned endorsement as per Annexure-A is examined in the light of observations made by the CoOrdinate Bench at paragraph 9 which is culled out supra, we would find that even in the present case, the Licencing Authority has committed an error by rejecting the application even before the stage of declaration of safer zone was over. In the present case on hand, the Licencing Authority has rejected the application without complying Section 6(3) of the Act. Section 6(3) clearly contemplates that the Licencing

¶35

¶36

Authority on receipt of joint inspection report is also required to await the report from the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board. The applicant is required to secure a consent for operation certificate from Karnataka State Pollution Control Board. In the present case on hand, the Licencing Authority has proceeded to reject the application which runs contrary to Section 6-A of the Act. The Licencing Authority has to process the application only after the applicant secures consent for operation from the Competent authority. In the present case on hand also, we would find that the Licencing Authority has committed an error by rejecting the application even before the stage of declaration of safer zone is over as contemplated under Section 6 of the Act.

¶37

For the reasons stated supra, the writ petition must partly succeed and we pass the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

(i)The impugned endorsement dated 31.03.2018 issued by Senior Geologist as per Annexure-A is quashed;

¶40

¶41

(ii)We direct the Licencing Authority to consider the issue of declaration of safer zone on the basis of joint inspection report at Annexure-D;

¶42

(iii)An appropriate decision shall be taken by the Licencing Authority on the basis of Annexure-D as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of two months from the date on which this order is webhosted ;

¶43

(iv)If the Licencing Authority decides to declare safer zone, on the petitioner producing consent for operation from the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, the application for grant of licence made by the petitioner shall be decided in accordance with the provisions of Section 6-A of the said Act of 2011;

¶44

(v)The issue as to whether the petitioner is entitled to declaration of safer zone or not is

¶45

¶46

kept open to be decided by the Licensing Authority;

¶47

(vi)The writ petition is disposed of on above terms.

¶48

Sd/ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50