H N Manjunath vs State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 52 Kant

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 52 Kant
Judgement Date : 4 January, 2021

Karnataka High Court

H N Manjunath vs State Of Karnataka on 4 January, 2021

Author: Chief Justice Magadum

                           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

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

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."

A 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