Disposed

Sri G.V. Bhanuprakash v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Jun 2021WP/6756/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, on a preliminary hearing via video conferencing, set aside an endorsement rejecting a quarry lease application. Following a cited judgment, the Court directed the application to be reconsidered based on an exception in Rule 8-B for applications pending before a specific amendment date.

What did the court decide?

The impugned endorsement dated 27.10.2017 was set aside, and the application was directed to be considered within three months based on the exception under Clause (d-1) of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 8-B.

Sri G.V. Bhanuprakash Vs the State of Karnataka — Mining and Natural Resources | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

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

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.6756 OF 2021 (GM-MM-S)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. G.V. BHANUPRAKASH S/O VENKATA REDDY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESIDENT OF ARURU VILLAGE ARURU POST, MANDIKAL HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT- 562 104 ...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. PRAKASH.B.S, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT (MSME & MINES), VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE- 560 001

¶12

THE DIRECTOR/COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN, R.C. ROAD BANGALORE- 560 001

¶13

THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & DISTRICT OFFICES COMPLEX, SIDLAGHATTA ROAD CHIKKABALLAPUR- 562 101 … RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA-PH)

¶15

¶16

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 5.20 ACRES IN SY.NO.94 NANDANAGENAHALLI VILLAGE, CHIKKABALLAUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 27.10.2017 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST, HAS BEEN PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. Notice had been issued on the earlier date.

¶20

On 6^th March 2014, the petitioner made an application for grant of quarrying lease under the provisions of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short, 'the said Rules'). The petitioner is relying upon 'No Objection Certificate' issued by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Chikkaballapura on 30^th July 2014 and a 'Joint Inspection Report' dated 3^rd April

¶21

¶22

His challenge is to the order/endorsement dated 27^th October 2017. By the said endorsement, the application made by the petitioner was rejected based on the recommendation of the District Task Force Committee taken on 15^th June 2017.

¶23

The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the application made by the petitioner was pending on 12^th August 2016 when Rule 8-B of the said Rules was brought on the Rule book. His submission is that the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered in accordance with Clause (d-1) of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 8-B of the said Rules.

¶24

The learned Additional Government Advocate

¶25

submits that the application made by the petitioner was rendered ineligible in view of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 8-B of the said Rules and hence, no interference is called for.

¶26

We have considered the submissions. In view of

¶27

the contention raised that the petitioner is entitled to the

¶28

¶29

benefit of Clause (d-1) of Sub-Rule (2) Rule 8-B of the said Rules and in view of the fact that the application made by the petitioner for grant of quarrying lease was pending as on 12^th August 2016, the case will be governed by the judgment and order dated 16^th August 2019 in W.P.No.10601/2019 and other connected matters. In paragraph 47 of the said decision, this Court held thus:

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

(b) All pending applications for grant of mining leases/licenses under the said Rules which were filed before 12th 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.

¶33

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

¶34

¶35

(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;

¶36

(e) In view of express provisions of subrule (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 subrule(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."

¶37

Therefore, we pass the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

i. The impugned endorsement dated 27^th

¶40

October 2017 is hereby set aside;

¶41

ii. The application made by the petitioner for grant of quarrying lease shall be considered

¶42

¶43

afresh only in the light of the contention of the petitioner that it is covered by exception carved out to Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 8-B by Clause (d-1) of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 8-B of the said Rules;

¶44

iii. An appropriate order shall be passed within

¶45

a period of three months from today;

¶46

iv. The petition is disposed of with the above directions.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE

Prs*

Sri G.V. Bhanuprakash v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri G.V. Bhanuprakash 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

K. Narasimhamurthy Vs Mahendra Jain

Sri Siddaramappa Vs Dr Rajneesh Goel I as

K Mohan Vs State Bank of India

Sri S a Muniraj Vs the State of Karnataka

Kartikeya Khanna Vs the Union of India

Manjunath R Patil Vs State of Karnataka