Karnataka High Court
Sri P Dinesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 January, 2021
Author: Chief Justice Magadum
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH 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.6506 OF 2020(GM-MM-S)
BETWEEN:
SRI. P. DINESH
SON OF LATE T. GANGADHAR TILAK
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.202:5
NEAR RAMAIAH CITY
7TH PHASE, J. P. NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 078
... PETITIONER
(BY SHRI. PRAKASH .B.S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT
(MSME AND MINES)
VIKASASOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001
2 . THE DIRECTOR / COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
KHANIJABHAVANA, R. C. ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001
3 . THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND
DISTRICT OFFICES COMPLEX
SIDLAGHATTA ROAD
CHIKKABLLAPURA - 562 101
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. I. TARANATH POOJARY, AGA)
-2-
---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 27.10.2017 ISSUED BY
THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY,
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, CHIKKABALLAPUR,
REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER FOR
GRANT OF QUARRY LEASE FOR QUARRYING BUILDING
STONE OVER AN EXTENT OF 5.00 ACRES IN SY.NO.94
NANDANAGENAHALLI VILLAGE, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, THE ENDORSEMENT DATED
27.10.2017 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST HAS BEEN
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Issue notice. The learned Additional Government
Advocate takes notice for the respondents.
2. By the impugned order at Annexure-A, the
application made by the petitioner for grant of a quarrying lease
in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Minor and
Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short 'the said Rules') has
been rejected firstly, on the ground that the proposed survey
number overlaps the 'Deemed Forest' list maintained by the
Forest Department and secondly, it is observed that there is a
shortage of gomal land in proportion to the cattle in the village
as per the report of the Revenue Inspector.
3. The submission of the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner is that as the application made by the
petitioner was pending on 12th August 2016, his case ought to
have been considered in terms of clause (d-1) of sub-rule (2) of
Rule 8-B of the said Rules. He submitted that necessary No
Objection Certificates were received from the concerned
authorities before 12th August 2016. When we made a query
on this aspect to the learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for the respondents, he submits that the factual
issue whether the required No Objection Certificates were
received will have to be decided.
4. As the application made by the petitioner was
pending on 12th August 2016, the issue will be governed by the
judgment and order dated 16th August 2019 in
W.P.No.10601/2019 and other connected matters and
especially, what is held in paragraph 47 which reads 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 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."
5. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the
case of the petitioner in terms of the applicability of clause (d-1)
of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B of the said Rules has not been
considered. Therefore, the case of the petitioner will have to
be considered in the light of the decision which we have
referred above.
6. Accordingly, we pass the following order:
(i) The impugned order at Annexure-A is hereby
set aside;
(ii) We direct the concerned respondents to
consider the case of the petitioner on the basis of
clause (d-1) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B of the said
Rules and in the light of what has been held in
paragraph 47 of the aforesaid decision in
W.P.No.10601/2019 and other connected matters;
(iii) The issue of applicability of clause (d-1) of sub-
rule (2) of Rule 8-B of the said Rules is kept open to
be decided by the concerned authorities;
(iv) Appropriate decision on the application made by
the petitioner shall be taken within two months from
today;
(v) The writ petition is partly allowed on the above
said terms.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
*alb/-.
