Allowed

M/S Rajath Stone Crusher v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Jan 2021WP/97/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the court held that a stone crusher company applying for licence renewal before the licence expiry date is entitled to a deemed extension under Section 5 of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011, provided the annual regulation fee is paid. The issue regarding the land status was kept open.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed granting deemed extension of the stone crusher licence subject to payment of annual regulation fee.

M/S Rajath Stone Crusher Vs the State of Karnataka — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021 PRESENT

¶4

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

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.97 OF 2021 (GM-MM-S)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/S RAJATH STONE CRUSHER NO.192, HOSAHALLI VILLAGE HUNASAMARANAHALLI POST JALA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU - 562 157 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. A. ANANDAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶10

... PETITIONER

¶11

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

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND LICENSING AUTHORITY THE DISTRICT STONE CRUSHER LICENSING AND REGULATION AUTHORITY CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT CHIKKABALLAPUR - 562 103

¶15

3 . THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST AND MEMBER SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING

¶16

¶17

SIDDALAGHATTA ROAD CHIKKABALLAPUR - 562 103

¶18

... RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SHRI. I. TARANATH POOJARY, AGA)

¶20

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO DEEMED EXTENSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION 5 R/W CLAUSE (ii) OF SUB-SECTION(3) OF SECTION 5 OF THE KARNATAKA REGULATION OF STONE CRUSHERS ACT, 2011 AS AMENDED BY THE KARNATAKA REGULATION OF STONE CRUSHERS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2020 AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶25

Issue notice to the respondents. The learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents.

¶26

It is not in dispute that the issue will be governed by the judgment and order dated 21^st October 2020 in W.P.No.11520 of 2020. It is not in dispute that the application for renewal of licence granted to the petitioner under the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011, was made before the expiry of the period of licence.

¶27

Hence, for the reasons recorded in the said judgment and order dated 21^st October 2020, we pass the following order:

¶28

¶29

ORDER

¶30

(i) We hold that as the application for renewal was made

¶31

by the petitioner before the expiry of the period of licence granted under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act of 2011, the petitioner will be entitled to a deemed extension of the licence in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 5 read with clause (i) of sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the said Act of 2011 as amended by the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers (Amendment) Act, 2020;

¶32

(ii) The petitioner shall be entitled to the deemed extension subject to payment of annual regulation fee as may be prescribed by the State Government;

¶33

(iii) The issue whether the land subject matter of the licence is a forest or a forest land is kept open in the light of the observations made in this judgment and order;

¶34

(iv) The petition is allowed on the above terms.

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE

*alb/-.

CJ & SSMJ : 22.02.2021

¶40

W.P.No.97/2021

¶41

ORDER ON BEING SPOKEN TO

¶42

It appears that clause (iii) of the operative part of the

¶43

order has been incorporated on the basis of the judgment and order dated 21^st October 2020 in Writ Petition No.11520/2020.

¶44

The issue whether the land subject matter of the licence is a forest or a forest land did not arise in this petition. Therefore, clause (iii) of paragraph 4 stands deleted. Clause (iv) shall be renumbered as clause (iii).

¶45

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

SN List No.1, Sl.No.60

M/S Rajath Stone Crusher v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Rajath Stone Crusher 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

Sri. B K Praveen Kumar Vs Sri. N.M. Jagadish

M/S Muniyappa Enterprises Vs Mr. N. Manjunath Prasad

South Canara District Co-Operative Bank Limited Vs Sri Tushar Girinath

Smt. Geetha Misra Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri H T Prashanth Vs Dr H R Mahadev

Sri K B Eshwaraprasad Vs B C Shivananda Murthy