Quashed

M/S v. P S Rock Sand Company v the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Feb 2024WP/4088/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Stone crusher licence was temporarily suspended without hearing the operator despite its reply to a shift-location notice; the High Court quashed the suspension and directed an additional reply, joint survey in petitioner's presence, fresh hearing and lawful re-decision.

What did the court decide?

Suspension order dated 25.01.2024 (Annexure-T) quashed; liberty to file additional reply within two weeks; joint survey and hearing before respondents pass appropriate orders.

M/S v P S Rock Sand Company Vs the State of… — Mining and Natural Resources | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:6253-DB WP No. 4088 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR P.S.DINESH KUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 4088 OF 2024 (GM-MM-S)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

M/S. V.P.S ROCK SAND COMPANY THARIKERE GRAMA, NO.81/PP5 KASABA HOBLI KUNIGAL TQ, TUMAKURU KARNATAKA-572 130 REPT. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. NAGRAJU B.S …PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SHRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SIRI RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPT. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 010

¶16

THE DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560 010

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:6253-DB WP No. 4088 of 2024

¶19

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND LICENSING AUTHORITY TUMKUR DISTRICT AND CHAIRMAN STONE CRUSHER REGULATION COMMITTEE TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR-572 101

¶20

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY AND MEMBER SECRETARY DISTRICT STONE CRUSHERS LICENSING AND REGULATION AUTHORITY TUMKUR DISTRICT TUMKUR-572 101 …RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SHRI. S.S. MAHENDRA, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF APPROPRIATE NATURE TO QUASH TEMPORARY ORDER OF SUSPENSION VIDE REFERENCE No. I.N.D.CF/CRUSHER/2023-24, DATED 25.01.2024 ORDERING THE TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF LICENSE OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-T TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.,

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This petition is filed challenging the order of temporary suspension petitioner’s licence by the third respondent.

¶26

Heard Shri D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Shri S.S.Mahendra, learned Government Advocate for the State.

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:6253-DB WP No. 4088 of 2024

¶28

The principal grievance of petitioner is that it has been running a stone crusher unit since 2016.

¶29

A Notice dated 21.11.2023 (Annexure-R) was issued to petitioner annexing order dated 16.10.2023 calling upon the petitioner to shift the crusher unit on the ground that it is not situated at the location permitted by the Department.

¶30

Shri Ravishankar submitted that no inspection was conducted in the presence of petitioner nor he was heard in the matter. Suddenly, the alleged impugned order passed has been in the month of October, 2023 and served in November, 2023.

¶31

Learned Government Advocate submitted that the

¶32

petitioner has submitted his reply to the Notice as per Annexure-S.

¶33

We have carefully considered rival contentions and perused records.

¶34

Admittedly, petitioner has submitted his reply to the Notice dated 21.11.2023. Petitioner was not heard before passing the final order dated 25.01.2024

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:6253-DB WP No. 4088 of 2024

¶37

(Annexure-T). In the circumstance, order as per

¶38

Annexure-T is not sustainable. Hence, the following;

¶39

ORDER

¶40

(i) Order dated 25.01.2024 bearing No.I.N.D.CR/CRUSHER/2023-24 passed by the third respondent (Annexure-T) is quashed ;

¶41

(ii) Petitioner is granted liberty to file additional reply to Notice dated 21.11.2023 (Annexure-R) within two weeks from today;

¶42

(iii) Petitioner shall be heard after granting an opportunity to petitioner and joint survey shall be conducted in presence of the petitioner. Thereafter, respondents shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law; and

¶43

(iv) With the above observations, this petition is disposed of .

¶44

In view of disposal of this petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and they stand disposed of .

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:6253-DB WP No. 4088 of 2024

¶47

Learned Government Advocate is permitted to file

¶48

memo of appearance within a period of two weeks.

No costs.

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47

M/S v. P S Rock Sand Company v the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S v. P S Rock Sand Company 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Central Warehousing Corporation Empoyees Union (Bengaluru Region) Vs Kshirodra Kumar Panda

Sri Narendra Kumar Vs Shri. Tushar Girinath

M/S Essential Hospital, Vs Mr. Harshavardhan

Sri M Seetharama Vs Prof Sangappa

Smt. Dr. Lalitha R. Vs Sri Jawaid Akhtar

Dr. Adam Usman K Vs Mr. D. Randeep, IAS