1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.1 OF 2021 (GM-MM-S)
BETWEEN:
H.N.MANJUNATH
S/O LATE C.NINGEGOWDA
AGED 51 YEARS
HIREMARHALLI GRAMA & POST
PANDAVAPURA TALUK
MANDYA-571 434.
... PETITIONER
(BY SHRI JAYANTH V, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPT.,
(MSME AND MINES)
VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. DIRECTOR/COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY
KHANIJA BHAVAN
RD ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001.
3. SENIOR GEOLOGIST
DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY
2
OFFICE OF THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST
VIDYANAGAR 1ST CROSS
MANDYA-571 401
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI TARANATH POOJARY, AGA)
---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER
QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 15/21ST
NOVEMBER 2017 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT No.3
(ANNEXURE A) AS BEING VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY,
CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Issue notice to the respondents. The learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for all the respondents. The matter is taken up for final disposal as the issue is covered by a decision of this Court dated 16th August, 2019 in W.P. No.10601 of 2019 and other connected matters.
2. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the application made by the petitioner for grant of quarrying lease under the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short, "the said Rules") was pending on 12th August, 2016 and therefore, the case of 3 the petitioner ought to have been considered in accordance with sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B of the said Rules, as held by this Court in the aforesaid judgment and order dated 16th August, 2019.
3. The learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that even assuming that the case of the petitioner can be considered in accordance with clause (d-1) of sub- rule (2) of Rule 8-B of the said Rules, the application for grant of quarrying lease ought to have been made on or before 16th June, 2015.
4. We have considered the submissions. In paragraph 47 of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 16th August, 2019, this Court held thus:
"47. In short the conclusions can be summarized as under:
(a) Rule 8-B of the said Rules, as amended on 12th August, 2016 is constitutionally valid;
(b) All pending applications for grant of mining leases/licenses under the said Rules which were filed before 12th August, 2016 and pending on the said date shall become automatically ineligible unless the cases specifically fall within any of the 4 exceptions specifically carved out in clauses (a) to (d) and (d-1) of sub- rule (2) of Rule 8-B.
(c) Only those application which were filed before 12th August, 2016 to which any of the clauses (a) to (d) and (d-1) of sub-rule(2) of Rule 8-B applies, can be decided in accordance with the Rules prevailing prior to 12th August, 2016;
(d) While deciding the question whether clauses (a) to (d) and (d-1) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B are attracted, if any deeming fiction providing for grant of deemed no objection certificates is expressly available under any of the express provisions of the said Rules such as sub-rule (6) of Rule 8, the same could be applied;
(e) In view of express provisions of sub-rule (1) and (2) of Rule 8-B, merely because there is a failure on the part of the authorities to obtain clearances/no objection certificates/reports, the mandate of sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B cannot be ignored and it shall apply with full force inasmuch as by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B, all applications received prior to 12th August, 2016 were made ineligible. The only exception provided is in the sub-rule (2) in case of the applications which are governed by clause (a) to (d) and (d-
1) of sub-rule (2). No other exception to sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B has been provided in the said Rules and therefore, cannot be carved out by the Court."
5A perusal of the impugned endorsement shows that the case of the petitioner about the applicability of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B of the said Rules has not at all been considered by the Senior Geologist. In the petition, the petitioner is relying upon clause (d) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B of the said Rules. In view of the law laid down in paragraph 47 of the aforesaid decision, the case of the petitioner will have to be considered on the issue whether any of the clauses of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B of the said Rules are applicable to the petitioner's case.
5. As regards clause (d-1) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B of the said Rules, we must note here that it underwent an amendment with effect from 18th November, 2017 by which the date "16.6.2015" was replaced by the words "commencement of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2016". The impugned endorsement has been issued on 21st November, 2017. Therefore, in our view, the respondents ought to have considered the case of the petitioner regarding the applicability of any of the exceptions carved out by sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B of the said Rules.
6
6. Hence, we pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) We affirm the view taken under the impugned endorsement that the application made by the petitioner for grant of quarrying lease had become ineligible in view of sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B of the said Rules;
(ii) We, however, direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner about the applicability of any of the exceptions carved out by sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B of the said Rules. The consideration shall be in accordance with what is held by this Court in paragraph 47 of the judgment and order dated 16th August, 2019;
(iii) An appropriate decision shall be taken within a period of three months from today;
(iv) The petition is disposed of on the above terms.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE vgh*