M/S. Abhinandan Stone Crushers vs State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 151 Kant

                            1


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                        PRESENT

       THE HON'BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE

                          AND

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

        WRIT PETITION NO. 14980 OF 2020 (GM-MM-S)

BETWEEN:

M/S. ABHINANDAN STONE CRUSHERS
CHIKKANAGAVALLI VILLAGE
MANDIKAL HOBLI
CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562 104
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI S.N. SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
                                         ... PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PRAKASH B.S., ADVOCATE)


AND:


1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
       COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES
        DEPARTMENT
       (MSME AND MINES)
       VIKASA SOUDHA
       BANGALORE - 560 001

2.     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
       AND LICENSING AUTHORITY
       THE DISTRICT STONE
       CRUSHER LICENSING AND
       REGULATION AUTHORITY
                           2

     CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT
     CHIKKABALLAPUR - 562 103


3.   THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST
     AND MEMBER SECRETARY
     DEPARTMETN OF MINES
     AND GEOLOGY
     DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING
     SIDDALAGHATTA ROAD
     CHIKKABALLAPUR - 562 103
                                    ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI I. THARANATH POOJARY, AGA)

                          ---

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO

QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 20.07.2020 ISSUED BY

THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST AND MEMBER SECRETARY, THE

DISTRICT STONE CRUSHED LICENCING AND REGULATION

AUTHORITY. THE ORIGINAL OF THE ENDORSEMENT DATED

20.07.2020 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:
                                 3

                           ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner.

2. Issue notice to the respondents. The learned

Additional Government Advocate takes notice for all the

respondents. Considering the narrow controversy involved

in the petition, the same is forthwith taken up for final

disposal.

3. The petitioner was granted a

licence under Section 3 of the Karnataka Regulation of

Stone Crushers Act, 2011 (for short, "the said Act of 2011").

A copy of the licence dated 4th April, 2013 is at Annexure-E

which shows that the licence was valid up to 31st March,

2016. Vide an application at Annexure-F dated 6th January,

2016, the petitioner applied for renewal of the licence.

4. The first challenge in this petition under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India is to the endorsement dated 20th

July, 2020 at Annexure-A which is issued by the Licencing

Authority. By the said endorsement, the application for

renewal was rejected, firstly on the ground that a criminal

complaint, being Crime No.340 of 2017 has been registered

and therefore, it is not proper to consider the application.

Secondly, it was held that it was decided not to accept any

new applications for grant of a licence under the said Act of

2011 in respect of lands situated in the taluk of

Chikkaballapur.

5. Apart from the prayer for quashing of the said order,

the second prayer is for grant of deemed extension of the

licence in accordance with the substituted Section 5 of the

said Act of 2011 and in particular, clause (i) of sub-section

(2) thereof. The substitution of Section 5 was made by the

Karnataka Act No.28/2020 (for short, "the Amendment Act")

which came into force with effect from 30th March, 2020.

6. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner is that in this case, the application for renewal

was filed much before the expiry of the licence granted to the

petitioner. He submitted that the said application was

pending on 30th March, 2020 and therefore, as per the

substituted sub-section (2) of Section 5 substituted by the

Amendment Act, the licence shall be deemed to have been

granted for a period of twenty years from the date of the

original grant. He submitted that by a deeming fiction, the

petitioner is entitled to grant of a licence for a period of

twenty years from 4th April, 2013. He urged that the

Licencing Authority has no jurisdiction to decide that

applications for grant of licence in respect of lands in

Chikkaballapur Taluk ought not to be entertained.

7. As far as the second ground in the impugned

endorsement is concerned, the learned Additional

Government Advocate pointed out that the issue is covered

by a decision of this Court dated 7th September, 2020 in

W.P. No.7811 of 2019 wherein it was held that the Licencing

Authority cannot direct that applications for grant of licence

should not be received at all and the said approach is

contrary to sub-section (2) of Section 5 as amended by the

Amendment Act.

8. We have considered the submissions. Section 6 of

the Amendment Act reads thus:

6. Substitution of Section 5.-

Section 5 of the principal Act, shall be renumbered as sub-section (1) thereof and,-

(i) in sub-section (1) as to re-numbered, for the words "valid for five years" and for the

words "for further period of five years" the words "valid for twenty years" and the words "further period of ten years" shall be substituted.

(ii) after sub-section (1) the following shall be inserted, namely:-

"(2) Subject to payment of such annual regulation fee as may be prescribed, all existing crusher licenses granted before the commencement of Karnataka Stone Crusher Regulation (Amendment) Act, 2020 shall be deemed to have been granted for a period of twenty years from the date of original grant and shall be extended accordingly.

(3) The benefit of extension under sub- section (2) of this section shall also apply,-

(i) for cases where crusher license renewal application was filed before the expiry of such license which is pending consideration before the licensing Authority; and

(ii) for the cases where the licensing Authority has rejected renewal applications solely on the ground of non-filling of such applications three months prior to expiry of such license but has applied for renewal before the expiry of licence as stipulated under sub-section (1), the renewal under clause (ii) shall be subject to payment of the penalty of rupees two lakh.

(4) Upon expiry of the period of crusher license specified in sub-section (1) and (2) of this section, the Licensing Authority may renew the licence on an application for renewal for further period for ten years."

By Section 6 of the Amendment Act, the original Section 5 of

the said Act of 2011 was substituted. Sub-section (2) of the

substituted Section 5 provides that subject to payment of

annual regulation fee, all the existing crusher licences

granted before the commencement of the said Amendment

Act shall be deemed to have been granted for a period of

twenty years from the date of the original grant. Clause (i) of

sub-section (3) of the substituted Section 5 provides that the

cases where the applications for renewal of licence were

filed before the expiry of such licences and which were

pending consideration before the Licencing Authority, shall

have the benefit of deemed extension under sub-section (2)

of Section 5 as amended by the Amendment Act.

9. In this case, the impugned endorsement is of 20th July,

2020 by which an application for renewal of the licence was

rejected. Thus, the application made by the petitioner for

renewal was pending on 30th March, 2020 when the

Amendment Act came into force. Therefore, by virtue of the

deeming fiction under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the said

Act of 2011 read with sub-section 3(i) thereof as amended,

the petitioner will be entitled to deemed extension of the

period of licence for a period of twenty years from the date of

the original grant.

10. In view of what is held in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the

judgment and order dated 7th September, 2020 in W.P.

No.7811 of 2019, the application for renewal of licence filed

by the petitioner cannot be rejected on the ground that the

Licencing Authority has decided not to entertain any fresh

applications for crusher licence in respect of lands in

Chikkaballapur Taluk.

11. As the extension of the period of twenty years is

automatic by a deeming fiction provided in sub-section (2) of

Section 5 of the said Act of 2011 as amended by the

Amendment Act, registration of First Information Report is no

ground to deny the said benefit, as the same is automatic by

virtue of the deeming fiction.

12. Accordingly, the petition must succeed and we pass

the following order:

ORDER

(i) The impugned endorsement dated 20th July, 2020

at Annexure-A is hereby set aside;

(ii) We direct the Licencing Authority under the said

Act of 2011 to extend the period of licence granted to the

petitioner in accordance with sub-section (2) of Section 5 of

the said Act of 2011 as amended by the Amendment Act;

(iii) Accordingly, the licence shall be issued to the

petitioner within a period of one month from today;

(iv) The petition is disposed of with the above

directions.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

vgh*