Karnataka High Court
Sri G.V. Bhanuprakash vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 June, 2021
Author: Chief Justice Govindaraj
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.6756 OF 2021 (GM-MM-S)
BETWEEN:
SRI. G.V. BHANUPRAKASH
S/O VENKATA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
RESIDENT OF ARURU VILLAGE
ARURU POST, MANDIKAL HOBLI
CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT- 562 104 ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRAKASH.B.S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT
(MSME & MINES), VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE- 560 001
2. THE DIRECTOR/COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY
KHANIJA BHAVAN, R.C. ROAD
BANGALORE- 560 001
3. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST
DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & DISTRICT
OFFICES COMPLEX, SIDLAGHATTA ROAD
CHIKKABALLAPUR- 562 101 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA-PH)
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
5.20 ACRES IN SY.NO.94 NANDANAGENAHALLI VILLAGE,
CHIKKABALLAUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, THE
ENDORSEMENT DATED 27.10.2017 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR
GEOLOGIST, HAS BEEN PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, CHIEF
JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Additional Government
Advocate for the respondents. Notice had been issued on
the earlier date.
2. On 6th March 2014, the petitioner made an
application for grant of quarrying lease under the
provisions of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession
Rules, 1994 (for short, 'the said Rules'). The petitioner is
relying upon 'No Objection Certificate' issued by the
Deputy Conservator of Forest, Chikkaballapura on 30th
July 2014 and a 'Joint Inspection Report' dated 3rd April
2017. His challenge is to the order/endorsement dated
27th October 2017. By the said endorsement, the
application made by the petitioner was rejected based on
the recommendation of the District Task Force Committee
taken on 15th June 2017.
3. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner is that the application made by the
petitioner was pending on 12th August 2016 when Rule
8-B of the said Rules was brought on the Rule book. His
submission is that the case of the petitioner ought to
have been considered in accordance with Clause (d-1) of
Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 8-B of the said Rules.
4. The learned Additional Government Advocate
submits that the application made by the petitioner was
rendered ineligible in view of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 8-B of
the said Rules and hence, no interference is called for.
5. We have considered the submissions. In view of
the contention raised that the petitioner is entitled to the
benefit of Clause (d-1) of Sub-Rule (2) Rule 8-B of the
said Rules and in view of the fact that the application
made by the petitioner for grant of quarrying lease was
pending as on 12th August 2016, the case will be
governed by the judgment and order dated 16th August
2019 in W.P.No.10601/2019 and other connected
matters. In paragraph 47 of the said decision, this Court
held thus:
"47. In short the conclusions can be summarized
as under:
(a) Rule 8-B of the said Rules, as
th
amended on 12 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 12thAugust, 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
th
Rules prevailing prior to 12 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."
6. Therefore, we pass the following:
ORDER
i. The impugned endorsement dated 27th
October 2017 is hereby set aside;
ii. The application made by the petitioner for
grant of quarrying lease shall be considered
afresh only in the light of the contention of
the petitioner that it is covered by exception
carved out to Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 8-B by
Clause (d-1) of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 8-B of
the said Rules;
iii. An appropriate order shall be passed within
a period of three months from today;
iv. The petition is disposed of with the above
directions.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Prs*
