Writ petition challenging the rejection of application for quarrying lease due to the 2016 amendment of mining rules. Court held that a Forest communication did not qualify as a necessary No Objection Certificate to avail the saving clause, leading to rejection of appeal.
Writ petition rejected; endorsement quashing the rejection order dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.8489 OF 2021 (GM-MM-S)
BETWEEN
D. SOMASUNDARAM S/O RAMANJANEYALU AGED 62 YEARS R/AT RAMADHOOTHA M.I.G. 84/B, IIND STAGE KHB COLONY, VINOBHANAGAR SHIVAMOGGA-577 207
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BHANUPRAKASH.V.G, ADVOCATE-VC)
AND:
2
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.S.MAHENDRA, AGA-PH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.GABOOE/EEBOOSHI/KACHERIKATTADA/2020-21/3673, DATED 08.03.2021 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT AND PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
the learned Additional Government Advocate for the first and fifth respondents.
3
by which the application made by the petitioner for grant of quarrying lease was rejected on the ground that the recommendation of the Standing Committee of the National Board for the Wild Life has not been granted.
submitted that it is well settled that the recommendations/consent of the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wild Life was
4
not required. He submitted that as there is no objection raised by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, the said communication amounts to consent or 'No objection' of the Deputy Conservator of Forest.
5
the application made by the petitioner was in respect of nonspecified minor minerals. In any case, both under clause (d) and clause (d)(1) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8B of the said Rules of 1994, one of the conditions precedent for applicability is that 'No objection certificate' from the Deputy Conservator of Forest should have been received before 12th August 2016. In this case, Annexure-E dated 27th October 2014 issued by the Deputy Conservator of Forest cannot be taken as a 'No objection certificate' as the said communication records that it was necessary for the petitioner to obtain the recommendation of the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wild Life.
6
of Forest was not received by the office of the Directorate of Mines and Geology. Therefore, the first condition for the applicability of clause (d) or clause (d)(1), as the case may be, of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8B of the said Rules of 1994 was not fulfilled. Only on this ground, we cannot find fault with the ultimate conclusion` arrived in Annexure-A that the case of the petitioner was not covered by any of the exceptions carved out under Subrule (2) of Rule 8B of the said Rules of 1994.
Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/JUDGE
ln
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's application for quarrying lease is saved from Rule 8-B(1) of the Karnataka Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1994 due to clause (d) of Rule 8-B(2).
2 provisions across 2 enactments
D. Somasundaram
The Director, Department of Mines and Geology
The Deputy Commissioner, Shivamogga
The Senior Geologist, Department of Mines and Geology
The Tahsildar, Shivamogga
The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest
Abhay S. Oka
Suraj Govindaraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
