Dismissed

M/S Svb Stone Crushers v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Oct 2022WP/22388/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227, the Karnataka High Court examined the validity of criminal proceedings initiated by a Geologist against a stone crusher for manufacturing M-sand. The Court held the Geologist was authorized, established that stone crushing without a Form-C licence is an offence, but left open the issue of whether the specific stone input lacked necessary permits.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking quashing of proceedings and return of seized material was dismissed with directions to the petitioner to produce documents in the trial court.

M/S Svb Stone Crushers Vs the State of… — Mining and Natural Resources | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 22388 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶5

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 22388 OF 2019 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/S SVB STONE CRUSHERS REP. BY ITS PARTNER SRI K H SURESH, S/O HUCHAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O SIDDARTHANAGARA BEHIND STUD FORM, KUNIGAL TOWN TUMKUR DISTRICT-572130

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. R.G. KOLLE, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP., BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU BENGALURU-560001

¶14

Digitally signed by POORNIMA SHIVANNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE SECRETARY TO GOVT., DEPT. OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU BENGALURU-560001

¶16

THE DIRECTOR & COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVA, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560001

¶17

MR.T.MAHANTESH THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPT. OF MINES AND GEOLOGY TUMKURU-572101 (NAME OF MR.T.MAHANTESH IS DELETED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 19.7.2019)

¶18

¶19

WP No. 22388 of 2019

¶20

MR.NAVEEN.P.S THE GEOLOGIST, (MINES) DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY TUMKUR-572101

¶21

(NAME OF MR.NAVEEN P.S. IS DELETED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 19.7.2019)

¶22

… RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. SHANKAR.H.S, HCGP FOR R1 TO R5)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 R/W ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING TO QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS ORIGINATED FROM THE COMPLAINT DATED 19.02.2019 FILED BY 5^TH RESPONDENT GEOLOGIST AT PCR NO.39/2019 PENDING ON THE FILED OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, KUNIGAL, TUMKUR DISTRICT, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP AND HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 12.9.2022, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs;

¶28

a. Issue a Writ of certiorari or any other order or direction, directing to quash or set aside the entire proceedings originated from the Complaint dated 19.02.2019 filed by 5^th Respondent Geologist at PCR No.39/2019 pending on the filed of Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Kunigal, Tumkur District, Produced at Annexure-A: and/ or

¶29

b. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other order or direction, directing to return the seized 500M-Sand as per Seizure Report dated 12.02.2019 produced at Annexure-B which is not defined as “Minor Mineral” in view of subsequent filing of a private

¶30

¶31

WP No. 22388 of 2019

¶32

complaint dated 19.02.2019 produced at Annexure-A; and / or

¶33

c. Pass such other further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice.

¶34

The Geologist filed a private complaint with the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal, Tumkur district on 19.2.2019 under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. which came to be registered as PCR No.39/2019 alleging offences under Section 4, 4(1A), 21, 22 and 23 of Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 [‘MMDR Act’ for short] and Rule 3, 42, 43 and 43A of Karnataka Minor Mineral Rules, 1994 [‘KMM Rules’ for short] as also rule 3(2) of Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 [‘Stone Crusher Act of 2011’ for short] read with Amendment Rules 2013.

¶35

It is alleged in the said complaint that the petitioner, though had obtained consent for operation, without obtaining Form-C, had carried out stone crushing activities resulting in the manufacture of M-Sand

¶36

¶37

WP No. 22388 of 2019

¶38

which amounted to an offence under the aforesaid provisions and as such, criminal prosecution was initiated against the petitioner.

¶39

Sri.R.G.Kolle, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that:

¶40

4.1. The petitioner, having obtained only CFO and not having obtained Form-C licence, the petitioner could not carry out any stone crushing activity and as such petitioner has not carried out any stone crushing activity.

¶41

4.2. Alternatively, he submits that the M-sand which has been generated and or manufactured is not a minor mineral inasmuch as it is not covered under the notification issued under the KMMC Rules classifying it to be minor mineral. When there is no minor mineral which is involved, the question of initiating proceedings under the

¶42

¶43

WP No. 22388 of 2019

¶44

aforesaid provisions against the petitioner would not arise.

¶45

4.3. He submits that the Geologist is not authorized

¶46

to file a complaint in respect of the aforesaid offences and as such in terms of Section 17 of the Stone Crushers Act, 2011 no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under the Act or any Rules made thereunder except upon a complaint in writing made by a person authorised on behalf of licensing authority.

¶47

4.4. In the present case, there being no licence which has been granted, the Licensing Authority would not have any power nor could it exercise any power. Hence, the question of taking action against the petitioner would not arise.

¶48

4.5. On all the aforesaid grounds, he submits that the petition is required to be allowed and the

¶49

¶50

WP No. 22388 of 2019

¶51

proceeding initiated against the petitioner in PCR No.33/2019 requires to be quashed.

¶52

Sri.Rohit, learned HCGP would submit that:

¶53

5.1. Geologist has been authorised in terms of notification issued by Commerce and Industries Secretariat, in No.CI.21.MMM(2) 2014, Bangalore, dated 21.01.2014 issued in exercise of powers conferred under Subsection (3) and (4) of Section 21 and 22 of MMDR Act, as also under Sub-rule 3 of Rule 43 and 46 of KMCC Rules. The reference to Geologist being found at Sl.No.10 is respect of their own jurisdiction. He therefore, submits that the Geologist being the authorised person under the aforesaid notification and having exercised power within his jurisdiction, same cannot be faulted with.

¶54

5.2. The allegation which is made against the petitioner is without obtaining Form-C, M-sand

¶55

¶56

WP No. 22388 of 2019

¶57

has been generated. This if disputed by the petitioner would have to stand trial and the matter to be determined during the course of trial whether he was or was not manufacturing M-sand when the allegation of the complainant is categorical that M-sand was being manufactured by the petitioner without Form-C having been issued.

¶58

5.3. As regards M-sand not being a minor mineral, he submits that a minor mineral is used for manufacturing of M-sand, therefore, unless there are any documents which are produced by the petitioner to establish that the minor mineral was brought to the Stone crusher of the petitioner under valid permit, after having paid valid royalty, the petitioner cannot claim that M-sand is not a minor mineral hence no offence is made out.

¶59

¶60

WP No. 22388 of 2019

¶61

Heard Sri.R.G.Kolle, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sr, Rohit, learned HCGP for respondents. Perused documents.

¶62

The points that arise for determination of this Court are:

¶63

1. Whether the geologist is authorised to initiate criminal proceedings under Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)Act, 1957?

¶64

2. Whether criminal proceedings could be initiated if any person were to manufacture M-sand without obtaining licence under Form-C under the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011?

¶65

3. Whether the person manufacturing M- sand can claim that since there is only manufacture of M-sand there would be no requirement for a licence in relation to building stone and or transport thereof, as a corollary M-sand which is being manufactured does not come under the definition of minor mineral hence no licence is required?

¶66

4. What order?

¶67

I answer the above points as under:

¶68

¶69

WP No. 22388 of 2019

¶70

9. ANSWER TO POINT NO.1: Whether the geologist is authorised to initiate criminal proceedings under Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957?

¶71

9.1. Commerce and Industry Secretariat has issued

¶72

a Notification dated 21.01.2014 which reads as

¶73

under:

¶74

TABLE

¶75

*Sl.* *No.*	*Designation* of *Officers/Authorities*	*Jurisdiction*	*Department*
(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)
1	The Additional Director (mineral administration)	Whole of the State	Department of Miners and Geology
2	The Joint Director, South/North zones	Within their jurisdiction	Department of Mines and Geology
3	Deputy Director (mineral administration)	Whole of the State	Department of Mines and Geology
4	The Deputy Commissioner	Respective districts	Revenue Department
5	The Superintendent of Police/Police commissioner	Within their jurisdiction	Police Department
6	The Deputy Conservator of Forest	Respective jurisdiction	Forest Department
7	The Deputy Superintendent of Police	Respective sub- division	Police Department
8	Deputy Director/ Geologist	Within their jurisdiction	Department of Mines and Geology

¶76

10 -

¶77

WP No. 22388 of 2019

¶78

9	The Asst. Commissioner	Respective sub- division	Revenue Department
10	*Geologist*	*Within* *their* *jurisdiction*	*Department* of *Mines* *and* *Geology*
11	The Tahsildhar	Respective Taluk	Revenue Department
12	The Circle Inspector/Inspector of Police	Within their jurisdiction	Police Department
13	Sub-Inspector of police	Within their jurisdiction	Police Department
14	The Revenue Inspector	Respective Hoblies	Revenue Department
15	The Range Forest Officers	Respective Range	Forest Department

¶79

9.2. A perusal of the above notification indicates that a geologist belonging to department of Mines and Geology shall within his jurisdiction be entitled to initiate proceedings under the MMDR Act and KMCC Rules.

¶80

9.3. Thus, I answer Point No.1 holding that a geologist is authorized to initiate criminal proceedings under the MMDR Act, within his own jurisdiction.

¶81

10. ANSWER TO POINT NO.2:Whether criminal proceedings could be initiated if any person were to manufacture M-sand without obtaining

¶82

11 -

¶83

WP No. 22388 of 2019

¶84

licence under Form-C under the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011?

¶85

10.1. Subsection (d) of Section 2 of the Stone

¶86

Crusher Act of 2011 defines licence to be a licence granted under the Act. ‘Licensing Authority’ is defined under clause (f) of subsection (2) to be authority defined under clause (b) of Section 2 namely the District Stone Crushing and Licensing Authority constituted under Section 8.

¶87

10.2. In terms of Section 3 of the Stone Crusher Act of 2011, no person carrying on the business of stone crushing except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions issued under the

¶88

Act. In terms of Section 6-A there are various conditions for grant of licence which have been prescribed. It is only if those conditions are satisfied that a licence could be issued. It is required therefore that after satisfaction of all

¶89

12 -

¶90

WP No. 22388 of 2019

¶91

the requirements, a licence in terms of Form-C is issued. Without such a licence, no stone crushing activity can be carried out.

¶92

10.3. In the present case, in the event of any one contravening the condition of licence, action can be taken in terms of Section 16 of the Act.

¶93

10.4. The contention of Sri.R.G.Kolle, learned counsel for the petitioner is that since no licence has been issued, the question of making applicable the Stone Crushers Act of 2011 is not permissible, is not acceptable by me. When there is a prohibition for stone crushing without a licence, it is not permissible for a person who carries out stone crushing to thereafter contend that since there is no licence which has been issued even though he has carried out stone crushing, no action could be taken by a licensing authority merely because it has not issued any licence.

¶94

13 -

¶95

WP No. 22388 of 2019

¶96

10.5. When there is a violation of the prohibition imposed under Stone Crushers Act of 2011 by the petitioner, building stones having been crushed by the petitioner, without a licence having been obtained as required under the Stone Crushers Act of 2011 as afore discussed, penal action could be taken against such an offender.

¶97

10.6. Hence, I answer Point No.2 by holding that the criminal action could be initiated if any person were to manufacture M-sand by crushing building stone or any other stone without obtaining licence in Form-C under the Stone Crushers Act of 2011.

¶98

ANSWER TO POINT NO.3: Whether the person manufacturing M-sand can claim that since there is only manufacture of M-sand there would be no requirement for a licence in relation to building stone and or transport thereof, as a corollary M-sand which is being manufactured does not come under the definition of minor mineral hence no licence is required?

¶99

14 -

¶100

WP No. 22388 of 2019

¶101

11.1. The alternative submission of Sri.R.G.Kolle, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has only manufactured M-sand by crushing a building stone, M-sand is not a minor mineral and therefore, there is no offence which has been committed under the

¶102

Stone Crushers Act of 2011 and MMDR Act.

¶103

11.2. This being a distinct offence under the MMDR Act, then that under the Stone Crushers Act of 2011, I am of the considered opinion that mere manufacturing M-sand would not amount to violation of MMDR Act, however since the building stone is used for manufacture of M- sand, it is required that proper permit/licence as regards the building stone and documentary proof relating thereto are required to be made available by the petitioner. The petitioner has

¶104

to place on record as regards from where he has got the building stone or any stone used for

¶105

15 -

¶106

WP No. 22388 of 2019

¶107

manufacturing of M-sand and if those documents are in order, no offence could be said to be made out. However, if the building stone or any other stone is used without necessary documents for manufacturing of M- sand, the same would continue to be an offence under the MMDR Act. This is a matter which requires trial.

¶108

11.3. It is, therefore, left open to the petitioner to place on record before the trial Court the documents relating to the building stone and/or any other material used for the purpose of manufacturing M-sand including necessary transport permits to transport the said building stone or any other stone to the stone crusher of the petitioner.

¶109

11.4. Thus, I answer point No.3 accordingly.

¶110

16 -

¶111

WP No. 22388 of 2019

¶112

12. ANSWER TO POINT NO.4: What order?

¶113

In view of the above discussion as regards points No.1 to 3 above, I am of the considered opinion that there are no grounds made out for quashing of the

¶114

criminal proceedings.

¶115

The petition stands dismissed .

¶116

Sd/JUDGE

¶117

M/S Svb Stone Crushers v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Svb Stone Crushers 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

Caterpillar Financial Services India Private Limited Vs Sheela

Caterpillar Financial Services India Private Limited Vs Manaranjan Brahma

Caterpillar Financial Services India Private Limited Vs Vakar Ahmad

Sri. Y.N. Sreenivasa Vs the State of Karnataka

The Management of Vs Engineering and General Works Union

Prathap Kumar G Vs State of Karnataka