Allowed

Sri G L Lakshmegowda v. District Stone Crusher Licensing and Regulation Authority

Karnataka HC25 Jun 2021WP/9499/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka directed the Licensing Authority to issue Form B1 (certificate of consent of safer zone) to the petitioner within one month, following a joint inspection report and the Authority's decision that the area is a safer zone, without adjudicating on forest land status.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Licensing Authority to issue Form B1 to the petitioner within one month.

Sri G L Lakshmegowda Vs District Stone… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^TH 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

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.9499 OF 2021 (GM-MM-S)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI G.L.LAKSHMEGOWDA SON OF LATE LINGE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS PROPRIETOR

¶11

M/S. SIDDESHWAR STONE CRUSHER R/AT GOWDAHALLI, T.M.HOSUR (PO) SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA - 571 401

¶12

... PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SHRI L M CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

DISTRICT STONE CRUSHER LICENSING

¶16

AND REGULATION AUTHORITY

¶17

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN

¶18

CUM DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

¶19

MANDYA DISTIRCT

¶20

MANDYA - 571 401

¶21

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT

¶22

MANDYA - 571 401

¶23

SENIOR GEOLOGIST-CUM

¶24

MEMBER SECRETARY

¶25

DISTRICT STONE CRUSHER LICENSING AND REGULATION AUTHORITY

¶26

MANDYA DISTRICT

¶27

MANDYA - 571 401

¶28

¶29

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST MANDYA DIVISION

¶30

MANDYA - 571 401

¶31

... RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SHRI S S MAHENDRA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

¶33

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE AN ORDER, DIRECTION WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 2^ND AND 3^RD RESPONDENTS TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE IN FORM-B1 ENABLING THE PETITIONER TO APPLY FOR CONSENT FOR OPERATION AND THEREAFTER APPLY FOR LICENSE FORM-C AND ETC.

¶35

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

¶36

ORDER

¶37

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.

¶38

The petitioner made an application for grant of a licence under Section 3 of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 (for short, "the said Act of 2011"). According to the case of the petitioner, a joint inspection was conducted in accordance with sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the said Act of 2011 and, thereafter, a report of the joint inspection was placed before the

¶39

¶40

Licensing Authority appointed under Section 8 of the said Act of 2011.

¶41

Relying upon the proceedings of the Licensing Authority of 14^th December 2020 (Annexure-H), the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a decision was taken to declare safer zone. His submission is that as per Annexure-G dated 15^th May 2020, No Objection Certificate was issued by the Deputy Conservator of Forests for setting up a stone crusher unit. He would, therefore, submit that a direction be issued to the Licensing Authority to issue Form B1 in accordance with sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Rules, 2012 (for short, "the said Rules of 2012").

¶42

The learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the land in respect of which application for licence has been filed by the petitioner is a forest land and, therefore, Form-B1 cannot be issued.

¶43

We have considered the submissions. Section 4 of

¶44

the said Act of 2011 reads thus:

¶45

"4. Application for license.(1)Every application for grant or renewal of licence to carry on the business of stone crushing under this Act shall be made to the Licensing Authority

¶46

¶47

in such form, in such manner, accompanied by such documents and such fees as may be prescribed. An application for renewal of licence shall be made to the Licensing Authority three months before the expiry of the licence.

¶48

(2) On receipt of application for grant or renewal of licence, the Licensing Authority shall cause joint inspection of the location under sub-section (3) of section 6. After declaration of safer zone, the Licensing Authority shall issue a certificate of consent of safer zone to the applicant. If the area proposed in the application is not declared as safer zone, the Licensing Authority shall reject the application for the reasons to be recorded in writing and inform the applicant accordingly. However, applicant is at liberty to make fresh application for alternate location.

¶49

(3) If the Licensing Authority issues a certificate of consent of safer zone, the applicant shall approach the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and obtain Consent for Operation (CFO) and submit the same to the Licensing Authority."

¶50

(underlines supplied)

¶51

In this case, there is no dispute that the joint inspection was conducted in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the said Act 2011 and the joint inspection report was submitted before the Licensing Authority. On a plain reading of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the said Act of 2011, it is clear that once the joint inspection report is submitted before the Licensing Authority, the only consideration by the Licensing Authority shall be whether in

¶52

¶53

the light of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act of 2011, it can be said that the area in respect of which licence is sought is a safer zone. If the Licensing Authority comes to a conclusion that it cannot be declared as a safer zone, the Licensing Authority is under a mandate to reject the application for grant of licence. In this case, the proceeding of the meeting of the Licensing Authority held on 14^th December 2020 (Annexure-H) clearly records a decision that the applied area is in safer zone. On joint inspection report, the only enquiry which the Licensing Authority is required to make as per sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the said Act of 2011 is whether the applied area can be declared as falling in safer zone. If it is found to be in safer zone, considering the conditions laid down in Section 6 of the said Act of 2011, a certificate of safer zone in Form B1 is required to be issued to the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant is required to apply for grant of Consent for Operation to the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board.

¶54

It is not necessary for us in this petition to decide whether the applied area forms a part of a reserved or declared forest or a forest within the meaning of Forest

¶55

¶56

(Conservation) Act, 1980 (for short, "the said Act of 1980"). The reason is even if a licence under Section 3 of the said Act of 2011 is granted in relation to a forest within the meaning of the said Act of 1980, the licensee cannot act upon the licence unless consent of the Central Government is obtained in accordance with Section 2 of the said Act of 1980.

¶57

In view of the proceedings of the Licensing Authority held on 14^th December 2020 recording a conclusion that the applied area will have to be declared as a safer zone, Form B1 will have to be issued to the petitioner.

¶58

Accordingly, we dispose of the petition by passing the following order:

¶59

(i) We direct the Licensing Authority to issue Form B1 to the petitioner in accordance with sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the said Rules of 2012 within a period of one month from today;

¶60

(ii) We make it clear that we have not made any adjudication on the question whether applied area forms a part of forest;

¶61

¶62

(iii) With the above directions, the petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE

AHB

Sri G L Lakshmegowda v. District Stone Crusher Licensing and Regulation Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri G L Lakshmegowda v. District Stone Crusher Licensing and Regulation Authority

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

Mayanna Vs K.Manjunath

Arch Bishop Vs Nagappa Kamatti

Somashekara R Vs S R Umashankar I as

Smt.Honnamma Vs Sri.Mahadev

Sri Prasanna Shetty Vs the Regional Commissioner and

M/S. Yojaka India Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka