Allowed

Sri D Shankar v. Senior Geologist(Mineral)

Karnataka HC23 Mar 2022WP/15826/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed by a quarry license holder seeking direction to the respondents to allow quarrying activities after submitted representation was kept pending, the single-judge bench of the Karnataka High Court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 26.07.2021 and pass appropriate orders within three months of receiving the certified copy of the order.

Sri D Shankar Vs Senior Geologist(Min… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2022

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.15826 OF 2021 (GM-MMS)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI D.SHANKAR S/O K.DAMODAR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.942 2^ND ‘A’ CROSS, 1^ST BLOCK 3^RD STAGE BASAVESHWAR NAGAR BANGALORE-560 079

¶11

... PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI A.V.AMARNATHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SENIOR GEOLOGIST(MINERAL) DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT BANGALORE-560 001

¶15

DIRECTOR MINI AND GEOLOGICAL DEPARTMENT KANIJA BHAAN BANGALORE-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI S.S.MAHENDRA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) ---

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS, TO ALLOW THE PETITIONER TO CARRY OUT THE QUARRYING ACTIVITIES AS PER THE LICENSE GRANTED TO THE PETITIONER, LICENSE BEARING NO.494R DATED 28.09.2015 AS PER ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.

¶18

¶19

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

In this petition, the petitioner has sought for the

¶22

following reliefs:

¶23

A) Direct the respondents, to allow the petitioner to carry out the quarrying activities as per the license granted to the petitioner, license bearing No.494R dated 28.09.2015 as per Annexure-D.

¶24

B) Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of equity and justice.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶26

learned Additional Government Advocate for the

¶27

respondents and perused the material on record.

¶28

It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite

¶29

the petitioner submitting a representation dated 26.07.2021 calling upon the respondents to give permission to carry out quarrying activities, the respondents have not taken any decision nor passed any orders on the same so far. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶30

¶31

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that if reasonable time is granted, the concerned respondents would address the grievances of the petitioner and consider the representation and take appropriate decision/pass appropriate orders on the petitioner’s aforesaid representation in the light of the Central Government Notification dated 11.03.2020 and in accordance with law.

¶32

The submission of learned Additional

¶33

Government Advocate is placed on record.

¶34

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances

¶35

and the submission made at the Bar, we deem it just and proper to dispose of this Writ Petition directing the concerned respondents to address the grievances of the petitioner and consider and pass appropriate orders on the aforesaid representation dated 26.07.2021 and in accordance with law and in the light of the aforesaid Central Government Notification dated 11.03.2020, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶36

Subject to the aforesaid observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶37

¶38

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, does not

¶39

survive for consideration and accordingly disposed of.

¶40

SD/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶41

SD/JUDGE

¶42

BMC

Sri D Shankar v. Senior Geologist(Mineral)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri D Shankar v. Senior Geologist(Mineral)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri E Radhakrishnan Vs Union of India

Sri Mathew Thomas Vs the State of Karnataka

Aravind B Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Shri Nandi Mining Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

V Markandaiah Vs the Divisional Controller

Mr M Veerabhadra Swamy Vs State of Karnataka