Disposed

M/S Sri Vigneshwara Granite Industry v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2024WP/20345/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A granite firm's decade-old quarry lease application remained stalled after allegations of a fabricated official letter led to forensic referral and withheld no-objection. The court directed the competent authority to decide the application within four months, leaving discretion on obtaining fresh Deputy Commissioner opinion.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/S Sri Vigneshwara Granite Industry Vs the… — Mining and Natural Resources | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:21981-DB WP No. 20345 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 20345 OF 2022 (GM-MM-S)

¶9

BETWEEN :

¶10

M/S SRI VIGNESHWARA GRANITE INDUSTRY PLOT NO.134, 2^ND PHASE OPP CENTRAL WAREHOUSE ANTHARASANAHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA TUMKUR – 572 104 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR

¶11

SHRI S G CHANDRAMOULI

¶12

Digitally signed by AMBIKA H B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

(BY SRI. LAKAMAPURMATH CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND :

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPTT. (SSI, MINES AND TEXTILES) VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001

¶17

THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:21981-DB WP No. 20345 of 2022

¶20

KHANIJA BHAVAN BANGALORE-01

¶21

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT TUMKUR – 572 104

¶22

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MADHUGIRI SUB DIVISION MADHUGIRI, TUMKUR DISTRICT TUMKUR – 572 104

¶23

THE DIRECTOR STATE FORENSIC LAB GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA MADIVALA BANGALORE CITY – 560 068

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(SRI S.S.MAHENDRA, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 5 SRI A.K.VASANTH, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANTS IN I.A No.1 OF 2023)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE AN ORDER, DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE COMMUNICATION ANNEXURE-A DATED 15/6/2022 REFERRING THE JOINT INSPECTION REPORT DATED 10/02/2022 ANNEXURE-H FOR FORENSIC ANALYSIS, ISSUE AN ORDER, DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE COMMUNICATION ANNEXURE-A1 DATED 07.07.2022 IN NOT GRANTING NO OBJECTIN UNTIL ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER GET REPORT FROM 5^TH RESPONDENT AND ETC.

¶27

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

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:21981-DB WP No. 20345 of 2022

¶29

ORDER

¶30

Heard learned advocate Mr.Lakamapurmath Chidanandayya for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate Mr.S.S.Mahendra for respondent Nos.1 to 5. Learned advocate Mr.A.K.Vasanth appears for the applicants in I.A No.1 of 2023 who want to implead themselves.

¶31

By filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has advanced the following prayers,

¶32

(i) to set aside communication dated 15.06.2022 referring the joint inspection dated 10.02.2022 for forensic analysis.

¶33

(ii) to set aside the communication dated 07.07.2022 by which No-Objection Certificate was refused to be granted until Assistant Commissioner receives the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory.

¶34

(iii) to direct respondent Nos.1 to 3-authorities to grant the quarry lease on the basis of the report of the Deputy Commissioner dated 06.06.2014.

¶35

(iv) to declare that order of the Secretary to obtain fresh opinion from the Deputy Commissioner under Rule 8(5) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, for grant of quarry lease was illegal.

¶36

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:21981-DB WP No. 20345 of 2022

¶37

Noticing the basic facts from the pleadings in the petition, the petitioner made an application for grant of quarry lease in respect of the land bearing survey No.18 admeasuring 6 Acres and 20 Guntas situated at Hollakallu Village, Sira Taluk, Tumakuru District. The State Government had issued Notification under Rule 8-A of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘KMMC Rules’) for making the said land available for the purpose of grant of quarry lease.

¶38

3.1 The petitioner, which is a proprietary concern has been running a small-scale industry of cutting and polishing unit in Tumakuru town. It was stated that petitioner’s application dated 22.07.2010 was processed. The Director of Mines and Geology solicited report from the Deputy Conservator of Forests. The Deputy Conservator of Forests stated that the property in question was a gomal land and granted no-objection for giving the land for quarry lease to the petitioner for the purpose of removing granite blocks. Similarly, the Deputy Commissioner also submitted a report stating that the land consists of boulders and stones. A joint inspection was carried out and the report recommended grant of land for quarry lease to the petitioner.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:21981-DB WP No. 20345 of 2022

¶41

3.2 It is the case of the petitioner that one Mr.Venkatarama meddled with the process by raising certain allegations to see that the petitioner does not gets clearance in respect of the said land. A complaint came to be filed. It was stated by the said person in company with others alleging that they were agriculturists and that grant of quarry lease to the petitioner would adversely affect them. As the complaint was not entertained by the authorities having been found meritless, the said persons approached the AntiCorruption Bureau to make false allegation that certain documents were not genuine one.

¶42

3.3 In course of the processing of the application of the petitioner for grant of quarry lease, the Deputy Commissioner had submitted a report dated 06.06.2014 recommending the grant of quarry lease in favour of the petitioner under Rule 8(5) of the KMMC Rules. In the said report, there was a reference to the letter dated 10.02.2014 of the Assistant Commissioner. In the said letter also, the Deputy Commissioner had stated for granting after joint spot inspection. It is stated by the petitioner that however, the said persons led by said Mr.Venkatarama raised an allegation that the said letter dated 10.02.2014 referred to in the report dated

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:21981-DB WP No. 20345 of 2022

¶44

06.06.2014 was not a genuine document and was wrongly relied on. It was sought to be alleged that the signature of the Assistant Commissioner in the said letter was fabricated and was not genuine.

¶45

3.4 It appears that the application of the petitioner was once rejected which led the petitioner to file Writ Petition No.31946 of 2014 to challenge the decision of the Committee rejecting the application. The writ petition was disposed of. The petitioner was relegated to the remedy of revision. The revision was rejected. Yet another Writ Petition No.41910 of 2015 was filed before the Court against the order of the Revisional Authority.

¶46

3.5 The said writ petition was allowed on 30.09.2015 by the Court directing the State Government to consider the revision again afresh within the stipulated time. The order of the Director of Mines and Geology came to be set aside as the revision application was allowed on 05.03.2016. The original application for grant of quarry lease dated 22.07.2010 was restored and was directed to be placed before the Committee functioning under Rule 11 of the KMMC Rules.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:21981-DB WP No. 20345 of 2022

¶49

3.6 It appears that the application of the petitioner for grant of quarry lease restored as above, was further considered by the authorities at various levels. The petitioner had an occasion to file Writ Petition No.28471 of 2018 also. The writ petition was allowed directing the State Government to consider the application of the petitioner. Finally, the State Government passed the order dated 14.02.2022 directing that the petitioner is entitled to grant of the quarry lease subject to obtaining the opinion of the Deputy Commissioner once again.

¶50

3.7 The case of the petitioner is that there is no provision to obtain the opinion of the Deputy Commissioner again and again and that such opinion was given earlier in favour of the petitioner. It appears that the authorities continued to correspond inter se with regard to consideration of the application of the petitioner which however remained pending because of procedural wrangle as aforesaid. At one point of time, report dated 06.06.2014 was submitted by the Deputy Commissioner recommending grant of land to the petitioner for quarry lease which inter alia was based on letter of the Assistant Commissioner dated 10.02.2014. The allegations were raised about the genuineness of the said letter

¶51

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:21981-DB WP No. 20345 of 2022

¶52

dated 10.02.2014 by the above named Mr.Venkatarama and other persons. It is in light of the allegations that the impugned communication dated 15.06.2022 came to be passed referring the letter dated 10.02.2014 for forensic analysis as the allegation was about the fabricated signature, etc.

¶53

Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the application of the petitioner is made to move pillar to post for no good reason. The application was made as back as in the year 2010 but, still not decided even after passage of one and a half decade. It was submitted, the Assistant Commissioner who had attended the meeting has confirmed the genuineness of the letter dated 10.02.2014 and that even the signature was admitted to be his own. It was submitted that after eight years, it is proposed to send the letter dated 10.02.2014 to Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis and on that count, no-objection to grant of quarry lease is unlawfully withheld by the authorities who have been refusing

¶54

no-objection on the said ground alone. It was submitted that because of the snag of red-tapism in which the authorities have guided themselves on the basis of false allegations, the grant of quarry lease to the petitioner has been stalled in arbitrary manner.

¶55

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:21981-DB WP No. 20345 of 2022

¶56

Having noticed the facts pleaded in the petition and highlighted in a nutshell as above, this Court considers it appropriate to direct the competent authority-respondent to consider and decide the application of the petitioner for grant of quarry lease within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the order.

¶57

All the formalities shall be completed, including signature, the consent from different authorities, in arriving at a final decision on the application of the petitioner for grant of quarry lease and for grant of no-objection for the said purpose.

¶58

6.1 The respondent shall act at the discretion as to fresh opinion from the Deputy Commissioner under Rule 8(5) of the KMMC Rules is to be obtained or not.

¶59

6.2 It is left for the competent authority to finally consider the set of facts obtained in case of the petitioner and render a decision about grant of quarry lease to the petitioner as applied for.

¶60

Without expressing on the merits of the case, this petition is disposed of in terms of the above directions.

¶61

10 -

¶62

NC: 2024:KHC:21981-DB WP No. 20345 of 2022

¶63

In view of disposal of the petition, the interlocutory applications would not survive and they stand accordingly disposed of.

¶64

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶65

Sd/JUDGE

¶66

AHB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

M/S Sri Vigneshwara Granite Industry v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/S Sri Vigneshwara Granite Industry v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. M. v. Venkatesh Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Suresha L Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Mahadeshwara Granites Vs State of Karnataka

B. Krishnaaiah Vs Director of Mines and Geology

Sri D Subramani Vs State of Karnataka

Sri P Kuppuswamy Vs State of Karnataka