Partly allowed

Sri P Dinesh v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Jan 2021WP/6506/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, in a writ petition, quashed an order rejecting the petitioner's application for a quarry lease. The Court directed respondents to reconsider the case under clause (d-1) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B of the Karnataka Minor and Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, as the impugned order failed to consider this provision applicable to pending applications dated prior to 12 August

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside; respondents directed to reconsider the petition under clause (d-1) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B within two months.

Sri P Dinesh Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021 PRESENT

¶3

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

¶4

AND

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.6506 OF 2020(GM-MM-S)

¶7

BETWEEN: SRI. P. DINESH SON OF LATE T. GANGADHAR TILAK AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.202:5 NEAR RAMAIAH CITY 7^TH PHASE, J. P. NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 078 (BY SHRI. PRAKASH .B.S, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT (MSME AND MINES) VIKASASOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001

¶10

2 . THE DIRECTOR / COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJABHAVANA, R. C. ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001 3 . THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT OFFICES COMPLEX SIDLAGHATTA ROAD CHIKKABLLAPURA - 562 101 (BY SHRI. I. TARANATH POOJARY, AGA)

... RESPONDENTS

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 27.10.2017 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, CHIKKABALLAPUR, REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER FOR GRANT OF QUARRY LEASE FOR QUARRYING BUILDING STONE OVER AN EXTENT OF 5.00 ACRES IN SY.NO.94 NANDANAGENAHALLI VILLAGE, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 27.10.2017 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST HAS BEEN PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Issue notice. The learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents.

¶18

By the impugned order at Annexure-A, the application made by the petitioner for grant of a quarrying lease in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Minor and Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short ‘the said Rules’) has been rejected firstly, on the ground that the proposed survey number overlaps the ‘Deemed Forest’ list maintained by the Forest Department and secondly, it is observed that there is a shortage of gomal land in proportion to the cattle in the village as per the report of the Revenue Inspector.

¶19

The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that as the application made by the

¶20

¶21

petitioner was pending on 12^th August 2016, his case ought to have been considered in terms of clause (d-1) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B of the said Rules. He submitted that necessary No Objection Certificates were received from the concerned authorities before 12^th August 2016. When we made a query on this aspect to the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, he submits that the factual issue whether the required No Objection Certificates were received will have to be decided.

¶22

As the application made by the petitioner was pending on 12^th August 2016, the issue will be governed by the judgment and order dated 16^th August 2019 in W.P.No.10601/2019 and other connected matters and especially, what is held in paragraph 47 which reads thus:

¶23

"47. In short the conclusions can be summarized as under:

¶24

(a) Rule 8-B of the said Rules, as amended on 12^th August, 2016 is constitutionally valid;

¶25

(b) All pending applications for grant of mining leases/licenses under the said Rules which were filed before 12^th August, 2016 and pending on the said date shall become automatically ineligible unless the cases specifically fall within any of the exceptions specifically carved out in clauses (a) to (d) and (d-1) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B.

¶26

¶27

(c) Only those application which were filed before 12^th August, 2016 to which any of the clauses (a) to (d) and (d-1) of sub-rule(2) of Rule 8-B applies, can be decided in accordance with the Rules prevailing prior to 12^th August, 2016;

¶28

(d) While deciding the question whether clauses (a) to (d) and (d-1) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B are attracted, if any deeming fiction providing for grant of deemed no objection certificates is expressly available under any of the express provisions of the said Rules such as sub-rule (6) of Rule 8, the same could be applied;

¶29

(e) In view of express provisions of sub-rule (1) and (2) of Rule 8-B, merely because there is a failure on the part of the authorities to obtain clearances/no objection certificates/reports, the mandate of sub-rule (1) of Rule 8- B cannot be ignored and it shall apply with full force inasmuch as by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B, all applications received prior to 12^th August, 2016 were made ineligible. The only exception provided is in the sub-rule (2) in case of the applications which are governed by clause (a) to (d) and (d-1) of sub-rule (2). No other exception to sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B has been provided in the said Rules and therefore, cannot be carved out by the Court."

¶30

Perusal of the impugned order shows that the

¶31

case of the petitioner in terms of the applicability of clause (d-1) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B of the said Rules has not been considered. Therefore, the case of the petitioner will have to be considered in the light of the decision which we have referred above.

¶32

¶33

6. Accordingly, we pass the following order:

¶34

(i) The impugned order at Annexure-A is hereby set aside;

¶35

(ii) We direct the concerned respondents to consider the case of the petitioner on the basis of clause (d-1) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B of the said Rules and in the light of what has been held in paragraph 47 of the aforesaid decision in W.P.No.10601/2019 and other connected matters; (iii) The issue of applicability of clause (d-1) of subrule (2) of Rule 8-B of the said Rules is kept open to be decided by the concerned authorities;

¶36

(iv) Appropriate decision on the application made by the petitioner shall be taken within two months from today;

¶37

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

¶38

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

*alb/-.

Sri P Dinesh v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri P Dinesh 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 Thagadaiah Vs Smt.Manjula

Sri T S Ramaprasad Vs Smt Manjula

Anil Antony Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Bhagyavathi Vs G C Prakash

Sri. Anand Kumar N Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ramanna Vs the State of Karnataka