Quashed

Sri. H. B. Ravikumar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Mar 2021WP/2703/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order prohibiting quarrying and crusher activities in specified areas of Mandya District. The court held that valid licenses and leases granted under statutory rules cannot be overridden by a Section 144 CrPC order unless the underlying licenses are cancelled.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order prohibiting quarrying and crusher activities was quashed and set aside, though the State retains the power to take appropriate legal measures to protect the dam.

Sri. H. B. Ravikumar Vs State of Karnataka — Mining and Natural Resources | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^st DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶8

W.P. NO. 2703 OF 2021 (GM-MM-S)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

1 . SRI. H. B. RAVIKUMAR SON OF LATE BOJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF M/S. SRI. LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA STONE CRUSHERS NO.20, ‘AMMA’, 7^TH MAIN, D BLOCK, VIJAYANAGAR 3^RD STAGE, MYSORE-570 017.

¶11

2 . M/s. SRI KRISHNA STONE CRUSHINAG INDUSTRIES REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI. SUNIL KUMAR, SON OF SRI. KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, NO.67, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR, 1^ST STAGE, MYSORE-570 017.

¶12

3 . M/s. SRI. JYOTHI STONE CRUSHER REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. K. J. MANJU SON OF JAVARE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, SY. NO.1/53, BABY BETTA KAVAL

¶13

¶14

CHINAKURALI HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 455.

¶15

4 . M/s. SRI. RAMANJANEYA STONE CRUSHER INDUSTRY REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. A. S. RAMESH, SON OF SANNAMANCHE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, NO.28, C BLOCK, III STAGE, VIJAYANAGAR, MYSORE-570 030,

¶16

5 . M/s. DIPIN STONE CRUSHER REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. HARISH LINGAPPA, SON OF MR. Y. L. LINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, NO.23, LALITHA KUTEERA 80 FEET ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR III STAGE, MYSORE-570 030.

¶17

6 . M/s. AHALYADEVI STONE CRUSHERS REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. B. REVANNA, SON OF BETTE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, NO.1230, PANDAVAPURA ROAD, T. K. LAYOUT, MYSORE-570 030.

¶18

7 . M/s. SRI. MANGALA STONE CRUSHER REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. C. A. RAMESH, S/O ANKAPUTTASWAMY GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, NO.10861, 2ND PHASE, 4TH STAGE, VIJAYANAGAR, MYSORE-570 032.

¶19

¶20

8 . M/s . SIDDALINGESHWARA STONE CRUSHERS REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI. K. S. NAGARAJU, SON OF SRI. SIDDALINGA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, NO.70, MATHRU SHREE NILAYA, TOWN PLANNING EMPLOYMENT LAYOUT, BASAVESWARA NAGAR, MYSORE-570 022, 9 . M/s SRI. MANU STONE CRUSHER REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI. G. A. KOMALEGOWDA, SON OF LATE K. ANKE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, CHINAKURALI VILLAGE, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 455, 10 . SRI. B. H. RIZWAN SON OF SRI. B. M. HAMEED, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, PROPRIETOR M/s KARNATAKA STONE CRUSHING INDUSTRIES, RESIDING AT NO. 99/M-18, LION’S BHAVAN ROAD, MYSORE-570 021. 11 . M/s. DHANALAKSHMI STONE CRUSHERS REPRESENTED BY HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE AND SON SRI. M. N. SHIVANNA, BABYBETTA VILLAGE, CHINAKURALI HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 455. 12 . SRI. H. KRISHNEGOWDA SON OF SRI. HANUMANTHEGOWDA H. R., AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶21

¶22

PROPRIETOR M/s. SRI. SIDDARAMESHWARA STONE CRUSHERS, NO.29, HONAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHINAKURALI HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 455.

¶23

13 . M/s. J. K. STONE CRUSHER REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI. M. JITENDRA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, NO. 321, 7TH CROSS, 2ND STAGE, HEBBAL, MYSORE-570 016. 14 . M/s. SIDDESHWARA STONE CRUSHER REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. K. S. JAYARAM, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, SY. NO. 01/98, BABY BETTADAKAVAL VILLAGE, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 455.

¶24

15 . M/s. YATHIN STONE CRUSHER REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. B. M. NATARAJU, S/O. MADEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, NO. 54, KAVERI MAIN ROAD, GURURAJ LAYOUT, MYSORE-570 029.

¶25

... PETITIONERS (BY SHRI LAKAMAPURMATH CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE)

¶26

AND:

¶27

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

¶28

¶29

M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶30

2 . DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA-571 455.

¶31

3 . ASST. COMMISSIONER PANDAVAPURA SUB-DIVISION, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 455.

¶32

4 . TAHASILDAR AND EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 455.

¶33

5 . SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY (MINES DIVISION) MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA-571 455.

¶34

... RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SHRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, AGA)

¶36

¶37

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 2236 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FORM THE RESPONDENT WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN PASSING THE ORDER IMPUGNED AT ANNEXURE-A DATED 25.1.2021 PASSED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT, AND ETC.

¶38

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶39

¶40

ORDER

¶41

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. Notice for final disposal was issued on 10^th February, 2021.

¶42

The challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the following part of the order passed by the Special Divisional Magistrate in purported exercise of powers under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C”). The operative part of the impugned order dated 25^th January, 2021 reads thus:

¶43

“ORDER No.MAG.CR.37/2020-21 DATE: 25.01.2021

¶44

I, B.C.shivanandamurthy, KAS, Asst. Commissioner cum Sub Division Magistrte, Pandavapura Sub Division, Pandavapur, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 144 of Indian Penal Code (sic), pass an order prohibiting conduct of any type of quarrying/crusher activities within the areas of Baby, Baby Bettada Kaval, Kanivekoppalu, Honanganahalli, Katteri, K.Mallenahalli, Malligere, Dinka, Alpahalli, Bindahalli, Bastihalli, Madrahalli, Banangadi, Chinakurali, Kamanayakanahalli, Tirumalapura,

¶45

¶46

Gummanahalli, Molesandra villages from 25.01.2021 to 24.03.2021.”

¶47

The said order is passed with my handwriting and Seal on 25.01.2021 .

¶48

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that some of the petitioners have been granted quarrying lease under the provisions of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (in short, “the said Rules of 1994”) and some of them have been granted crushing licences under the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 (for short, “the said Act of 2011”). He submitted that in exercise of powers under Section 144, Cr.P.C, the petitioners cannot be prevented from carrying out crushing or quarrying activities on the basis of the subsisting licences/leases, as the case may be. His submission is that sub-section (1) of Section 144, Cr.P.C will have no application.

¶49

The learned Additional Government Advocate supported the order by pointing out that the said order is a measure taken to prevent happening of incidents like the incident which occurred at Shivamogga. He stated that

¶50

¶51

stopping the crushing or quarrying activities for protecting Krishna Raja Sagar dam is necessary.

¶52

We have considered the submissions. Some of the petitioners are lawfully holding licences under the said Act of 2011 and others are holding quarrying leases under the said Rules of 1994. The effect of the impugned order is that notwithstanding the grant of licences and/or leases, a complete prohibition has been imposed on crushing and quarrying activities, as the case may be. So long as the licences/leases, as the case may be, are not cancelled, the respondents cannot prevent the petitioners from conducting quarrying/stone crushing operations.

¶53

Sub-section (1) of Section 144, Cr.P.C reads thus:

¶54

“144. Power to issue order in urgent cases of nuisance of apprehended danger -

¶55

(1) In cases where, in the opinion of a District Magistrate, a Sub- divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf, there is sufficient ground for proceeding under this section and immediate prevention or speedy remedy is desirable, such Magistrate may, by a written order stating

¶56

¶57

the material facts of the case and served in the manner provided by section 134, direct any person to abstain from a certain act or to take certain order with respect to certain property in his possession or under his management, if such Magistrate considers that such direction is likely to prevent, or tends to prevent, obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed, or danger to human life, health or safety, or a disturbance of the public tranquility, or a riot, or an affray.”

¶58

On a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that

¶59

the power cannot be exercised to prevent a licencee who has obtained a licence under the said Act of 2011 or a lessee who has been granted a quarrying lease under the said Rules of 1994 from carrying on crushing or quarrying operations, as the case may be. There are no recitals in the impugned order that such an action is taken to prevent obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed, or to prevent danger to human life, health or safety, or a disturbance of the public tranquility, or a riot, or an affray.

¶60

Moreover, the said Act of 2011 is a complete Code in

¶61

itself as regards stone crushing licences. Under Section 9 thereof, a power has been conferred on the Licensing

¶62

¶63

Authority to cancel a licence either suo motu , or on an application made by any person. There is a power of cancellation of a licence/lease conferred by the said Rules of 1994 under Rules 6 (3) and 45 thereof.

¶64

Hence, the impugned order cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed and set aside. However, this order will not prevent the State Government from taking appropriate measures to protect the Krishna Raja Sagar dam in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶65

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶66

Sd/JUDGE

¶67

vgh*

Sri. H. B. Ravikumar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. H. B. Ravikumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M Krishna Reddy Vs Sri N Manjunatha Prasad

M/S Granito Infrastructure Company Vs Smt. Archana

Sri Francies Vs Sri Tejas Kumar

Prashanth Regency Welfare Association Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Pharmatree Corporation Vs Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha

Sri R Shivakumar Vs State of Karnataka