Partly allowed

Sri S a Muniraj v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Jun 2021WP/6770/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed an endorsement rejecting a mining lease application. It directed respondents to reconsider the 2013 application specifically under the exception in Clause (d) of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 8-B, as per a 2019 judgment, and take a decision within three months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned endorsement dated 20th June 2017 quashed; respondents directed to reconsider applicant's petition under Clause (d) of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 8-B within three months.

Sri S a Muniraj Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.6770 OF 2021 (GM-MM-S)

¶8

BETWEEN

¶9

SRI. S.A. MUNIRAJ S/O ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT SADAHALLI POST DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562110 ...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. GANAPATHY BHAT VAJRALLI, ADVOCATE OF KUMAR & BHAT-VC)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001

¶13

THE SECRETARY

¶14

DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001

¶15

THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KANIJA BHAVAN BENGALURU-560001

¶16

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶17

¶18

DODDABALLAPURA DIVISION DODDABALLAPURA

¶19

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561203

¶20

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION DODDABALLAPURA

¶21

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561203 … RESPONDENTS

¶22

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

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY APPROPRIATE ORDER FOR QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 20.06.2017, BEARING SL.NO.GA.BHU.EE/BLR/KA. GHU-2/KA.GA.GHUA-238/2013/2017-18, ISSUED BY THE 4^TH RESPONDENT, AS PER ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.

¶24

*********

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Notice has been issued on the last date. The

¶28

petitioner has made an application on 1^st August 2013 for

¶29

grant of quarry lease under the Karnataka Minor Mineral

¶30

Concession Rules, 1994 (for short, 'the said Rules') in

¶31

respect of specified minor minerals of ornamental stone.

¶32

The petitioner is relying upon 'No Objection Certificate'

¶33

granted by the Deputy Conservator of Forest as well as a

¶34

'Joint Inspection Report'. The challenge in the petition is

¶35

¶36

to the endorsement dated 20^th June 2017 by which the said application was rejected on the ground that the same has become ineligible in view of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 8-B of the said Rules.

¶37

2 The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the issue is covered by the exception carved out to Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 8-B by Clause (d) of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 8-B of the said Rules as requisite no objection certificate and the joint inspection report were received prior to 12^th August 2016.

¶38

The learned Additional Government Advocate

¶39

opposes the petition.

¶40

This petition will be governed by the judgment and order dated 16^th August 2019 passed in

¶41

W.P.No.10601/2019 and other connected matters. In paragraph 47 of the said decision, it was held thus:

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

¶45

(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.

¶46

(c) Only those application which were filed before 12thAugust, 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;

¶47

(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;

¶48

(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."

¶49

¶50

Hence, we pass the following

¶51

ORDER

¶52

i. The impugned endorsement dated 20^th June 2017 is hereby quashed and set aside;

¶53

ii. We direct the respondents to consider the application made by the petitioner on 1^st August 2013 only in the context of applicability of Clause (d) of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 8-B of the said Rules;

¶54

iii. An appropriate decision shall be taken within a period of three months from today;

¶55

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

¶56

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

Prs

Sri S a Muniraj v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S a Muniraj 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

Kartikeya Khanna Vs the Union of India

Sri G.V. Bhanuprakash Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunath R Patil Vs State of Karnataka