M/S Bright Rocks And Minerals vs Sri N M Nagaraj., Ias

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 18726 Kant
Judgement Date : 26 July, 2024

Karnataka High Court

M/S Bright Rocks And Minerals vs Sri N M Nagaraj., Ias on 26 July, 2024

                                              -1-
                                                       NC: 2024:KHC:29539-DB
                                                         CCC No. 937 of 2022




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                             DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

                                           PRESENT

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

                                              AND

                             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

                            CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION No. 937 OF 2022

                   BETWEEN:

                   1.   M/S BRIGHT ROCKS AND MINERALS
                        PERESANDRA,
                        CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK,
                        CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562103,
                        REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
                        SRI.R. MITHILESH,
                        SON OF SRI RAGHAVENDRA REDDY,
                        AGED MAJOR.
                                                            ...COMPLAINANT
Digitally signed   (BY SRI PRAKASH B. S., ADVOCATE)
by VALLI
MARIMUTHU          AND:
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka          1.   SRI N. M. NAGARAJ, I.A.S.,
                        DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
                        AND LICENSING AUTHORITY,
                        THE DISTRICT STONE CRUSHER LICENSING
                        AND REGULATION AUTHORITY,
                        CHIKKABALALPUR DISTRICT,
                        CHIKKABALLAPUR 562103.

                   2.   STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                        REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
                        COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT,
                        (MSME AND MINES),
                                -2-
                                          NC: 2024:KHC:29539-DB
                                              CCC No. 937 of 2022




     VIKASA SOUDHA,
     BENGALURU-560001.
                                                     ...ACCUSED
(BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA)
      THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF
THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 AND ARTICLE 215 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, BY THE COMPLAINANT,
PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
THE ACCUSED / ALLEGED CONTEMNORS FOR WILLFULLY
AND DELIBERATELY DISOBEYING THE DIRECTION OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT VIDE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
29.9.2021 PASSED IN AFOREMENTIONED WP No.17432/2021.

    THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
       N. V. ANJARIA
       and
       HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND

                         ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND) This contempt petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India complaining disobedience of the order in Writ Petition No.17432 of 2021 dated 29.09.2021.

2. The complainant-writ petitioner filed an application dated 03.07.2015 for grant of licence to carry on stone crushing in an area of 2 acres in Survey No.11 of Jonnalakunte Village, -3- NC: 2024:KHC:29539-DB CCC No. 937 of 2022 Chikkaballapura Taluk, Chikkaballapur District. It is stated that joint inspection was conducted under sub section (3) of Section 6 of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 ['Act' for short]. The joint inspection report recommended to declare the area in question as safer zone. The Licensing Authority issued endorsement dated 31.03.2018 rejecting the application even before the decision is taken on the joint inspection report to declare the area as safer zone.

3. This Court in Writ Petition No.17432 of 2021 by following the judgment in Writ Petition No.38928 of 2019 held that it is only after declaration of safer zone on the basis of joint inspection report, the application for grant of license can be considered. The endorsement rejecting the application was much prior to declaration of safer zone. This Court accordingly issued the following directions, "ORDER

(i) The impugned endorsement dated 31.03.2018 issued by Senior Geologist as per Annexure-A is quashed;

(ii) We direct the Licencing Authority to consider the issue of declaration of safer zone on the basis of joint inspection report at Annexure-D;

(iii) An appropriate decision shall be taken by the Licencing Authority on the basis of Annexure-D as -4- NC: 2024:KHC:29539-DB CCC No. 937 of 2022 expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of two months from the date on which this order is web- hosted ;

(iv) If the Licencing Authority decides to declare safer zone, on the petitioner producing consent for operation from the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, the application for grant of licence made by the petitioner shall be decided in accordance with the provisions of Section 6- A of the said Act of 2011;

(v) The issue as to whether the petitioner is entitled to declaration of safer zone or not is kept open to be decided by the Licensing Authority;

(vi) The writ petition is disposed of on above terms."

4. The complainant has preferred this contempt petition contending that the respondents have disobeyed the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.17432 of 2021 dated 29.09.2021.

5. On service of notice, the respondents appeared and compliance affidavit dated 09.11.2022 is filed. It is stated in the compliance affidavit that the land in question at Sy.No.11 has been granted to Sri. T. Anand S/o Tirumalappa and Sri. Srinivas S/o Venkatarayapppa vide Order No.ROUSR 598/1999-2000. The grantees are in possession of land and are cultivating. The joint inspection was conducted on 27.10.2022 and it was recommended to conclude as, -5- NC: 2024:KHC:29539-DB CCC No. 937 of 2022 "As the proposed land is already granted, the question of declaration of safer zone does not arise".

6. It is stated that the land in question is not available for grant of license, consideration to declare safer zone would not arise. It is stated that the area in question is not free land and application of the complainant is rejected by issuance of Form-D dated 28.10.2022.

7. Learned advocate for the complainant submits that Form-D at Annexure-R5 is not in compliance of the directions of this Court in Writ Petition No.17432 of 2021.

8. This Court perused the directions issued in Writ Petition No.17432 of 2021 and the compliance affidavit along with the enclosed documents. There is substantial compliance of the directions issued in Writ Petition No.17432 of 2021. This Court does not find any further reasons to proceed with the contempt.

9. In view of the endorsement at Annexure-R.5, nothing survives to be proceeded further in this petition. It can hardly be stated that there is disobedience of the order in question. The contempt petition is accordingly disposed of. -6-

NC: 2024:KHC:29539-DB CCC No. 937 of 2022

10. However, the complainant is reserved liberty to pursue any legal remedy as available against the Form-D dated 28.10.2022, in accordance with law and on its own merits.

Sd/-

(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-

(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16