Dismissed

Sri Santosh T Khanappanavar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Dec 2021WP/6642/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL, petitioners approached the Court for a writ of mandamus and directions to initiate legal proceedings against persons illegally conducting crushing works. The Court found that the respondents had already issued notices, which the leaseholders accepted and paid penalties, rendering the petition infructuous. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No further action required; petition dismissed as infructuous.

Sri Santosh T Khanappanavar Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.6642 OF 2021 (GM-MMS) PIL

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI SANTOSH T KHANAPPANAVAR

¶11

S/O KHANAPPANAVAR

¶12

AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶13

R/AT GOKAK FALLS, GOKAK TALUK

¶14

BELAGAVI DISTRICT

¶15

SRI RAVI KHANAPPANAVAR S/O TAMMANNA

¶16

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶17

R/AT BILAKUNDI VILLAGE

¶18

GOSBAL POST, GOKAK TALUK

¶19

BELAGAVI DISTRICT

¶20

AND PERMANENTLY RESIDING

¶21

AT GOKAK FALLS, GOKAK TALUK

¶22

BELAGAVI DISTRICT

¶23

... PETITIONERS

¶24

(BY SRI Y.C.BHUJABALAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI CHANDRAKANTH R. GOULAY, ADVOCATE)

¶25

AND:

¶26

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶27

REP BY THE SECRETARY

¶28

DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY

¶29

AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS

¶30

M.S.BUILDINGS

¶31

BENGALURU - 560 001

¶32

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶33

REP BY THE SECRETARY

¶34

DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY

VIKASA SOUDHA

BENGALURU - 560 001

THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY

¶39

KHANIJA BHAVAN

¶40

RACE COURSE ROAD

¶41

BENGALURU - 560 001

¶42

THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY/DD DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY APMC ROAD, SANGESHWARA NAGAR BELAGAVI - 590 010

¶43

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & PRESIDENT

¶44

DISTRICT STONE CRUSHER LICENSE AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY

¶45

BELAGAVI

¶46

THE TAHSILDAR GOKAK DISTRICT

¶47

BELAGAVI

¶48

... RESPONDENTS

¶49

(BY SRI S.S.MAHENDRA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

¶50

¶51

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO INITIATE APPROPRIATE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ALL THE PERSONS CONCERNED WHO ARE ILLEGALLY DOING THE CRUSHING WORKS BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PETITIONER DATED 15.10.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-M AND DATED 18.2.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-P AND ETC.

¶52

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

¶53

¶54

ORDER

¶55

In this public interest litigation, the petitioners have

¶56

approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶57

"a) Issue A writ of mandamus directing the respondents to initiate appropriate legal proceedings against all the persons concerned who are illegally doing the crushing works by considering the representations of the petitioner dated 15.10.2020 vide Annexure-M and dated 18.2.2020 vide Annexure-P ;

¶58

b) ISSUE directions to the respondents to ensure compliance of the requirement of law to strictly adhere to the providing of the Acts and the Rules,

¶59

c) PASS such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper to meet the ends of justice;"

¶60

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing

¶61

for the respondents submits that in compliance of the Court's order dated 09.06.2021, a joint inspection was conducted and thereafter, notices dated 30.07.2021 were issued to the leaseholders based on the joint inspection report dated 12.07.2021. When the leaseholders had not filed any reply to the said notices, again notices were issued calling upon them to pay the quantified penalty amounts. On receipt of the notices, the leaseholders accepted the claims and paid the penalty amounts under Challans dated

¶62

¶63

09.09.2021. The details of the penalty amounts paid are

¶64

tabulated in the report dated 09.09.2021.

¶65

In view of the above, we are of the considered view that no further action is required to be taken. The writ petition has become infructuous and it is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE

AHB

Sri Santosh T Khanappanavar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Santosh T Khanappanavar 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/S Ultra Tech Cement Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Ravindra Appasab Mali Vs the Director Department of Mines and Geology

M D Kaushik Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Vinay R Vs the Secretary

Sri. K. M. Rajashekar Murthy Vs State of Karnataka

M. Samiulla Vs the Deputy Commissioner