Karnataka High Court
Abhishek Stone Crusher vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 May, 2021
Author: Chief Justice Govindaraj
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.9158 OF 2021 (GM-MMS)
BETWEEN:
ABHISHEK STONE CRUSHER
OFFICE AT "ARUNA NILAYA"
6TH CROSS, MUNICIPAL COLONY
KELAGOTE
CHITRADURGA - 577502
REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI A.R ABHISHEK
... PETITIONER
(BY SHRI GANAPATI BHAT VAJRALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VIDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VIDHI
BENGALURU - 56 0001
3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VIDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001
-2-
4. THE LICENSING AUTHORITY/PRESIDENT
AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DISTRICT STONE CRUSHER LICENSING AND
CONTROLLING AUTHORITY
REP. BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHITRADURGA - 577501
5. THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
KANIJA BHAVAN
BENGALURU - 560 001
6. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
CHITRADURGA TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577501
7. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
CHITRADURGA TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577501
8. THE RANGE OFFICER
WILDLIFE RANGE
CHITRADURGA - 577501
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI S.S.MAHENDRA, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30TH JULY 2019
ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-L IN
RESPECT OF SCHEDULE QUARRY LEASE AND CRUSHER UNIT
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. Considering the
limited controversy involved, this petition is taken up for final
disposal.
2. The petitioner has been granted a quarrying lease
(Annexure-E) under the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession
Rules, 1994 (for short 'the said Rules of 1994') for a period of
twenty years with effect from 31st October 2009. The petitioner
has been also granted a licence under Section 3 of the
Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 (for short
'the said Act of 2011') for carrying out crushing activities which
is valid up to 20th February 2035.
3. By the impugned order at Annexure-L dated
30th July 2019, the petitioner has been called upon to stop the
quarrying activities on the basis of the aforesaid quarrying
lease and the crushing activities on the basis of the licence
granted under Section 3 of the said Act of 2011. It is stated
that the area covered by the quarrying lease is within 10
kilometers of eco-sensitive zone surrounding Jogimatti forest
and therefore, the consent of the National Wildlife Board is
required for carrying out the quarrying and crushing operations.
4. The submission of the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner is that neither under the said Rules of 1994
nor under Section 19 of the Mines and Minerals (Development
and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short 'the said Act of 1957'),
there is a provision to suspend the operation of a quarrying
lease. He further submitted that in the facts of the case, there
is no power vesting in the Authorities under said Act of 2011 to
suspend the licence granted under Section 3 of the said Act of
2011. Reliance is placed on a decision of this Court dated
12th April 2021 in W.P.No.3296/2021 and other connected
matters and in particular, what is held in paragraphs 4 and 5. A
reliance is also placed on the judgment of this Court dated 13th
January 2021 in W.P.No.15654/2020.
5. The learned Additional Government Advocate,
placing reliance on the order of the Apex Court dated
11th December 2018 in W.P. (Civil) No.202/1995
(T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union of India and
others), submitted that Jogimatti Sanctuary is covered by the
said order and the judgment rendered in W.P.No.15645/2020 is
in respect of a National Park/Sanctuary which is not included in
the list of 21 National Parks/Sanctuaries incorporated in the
order dated 11th December 2018 of the Apex Court.
6. After having considered the submissions of the
learned counsel appearing for the parties, we find that it is not
necessary for us to go into the question whether the decision in
W.P.No.15645/2020 will apply in this case. As far as the lease
granted under the said Rules of 1994 is concerned, in
paragraphs 4 and 5 of the judgment and order dated 12th April
2021 in W.P.No.3296/2021, it is held thus:
"4. After having perused the order
impugned in W.P.No.3296/2021, it must be
mentioned here that the same does not refer to
any statutory provisions or statutory Rules which
empower the District Task Force Committee or
the State Government to close all the activities of
mining in a particular area. So long as the
leases granted to the petitioners under the said
Rules of 1994 are valid and subsisting, the
mining activities on the basis of the leases
cannot be prevented or stopped.
5. In case the petitioners commit breach of
the provisions of the said Rules of 1994 or the
conditions in the leases, action can be initiated
under Rule 6(3) of the said Rules of 1994.
Moreover, Section 19 of Mines and Minerals
Development and Regulation Act, 1957 provides
that if any prospecting licence or mining lease is
granted, renewed or acquired in contravention of
the provisions of the said Act or any Rules or
orders made thereunder, the same shall be void
and of no effect. However, recourse to the
aforesaid provisions has not been taken in the
cases in hand."
7. Under clause (vi) of sub-section (2) of Section 9 of
the said Act of 2011, there is a power vesting in the Authority,
as defined, to suspend/cancel the crusher licence for non-
compliance of the conditions of the licence. Therefore, the
power to suspend the licence conferred by the said Act of 2011
and in particular, Section 9 is limited to the cases where there
is a non-compliance or breach of the conditions incorporated in
the licence. In the present case, there is no such allegation.
However, there is a power under Section 10 of the said Act of
2011 to cancel the licence on the grounds mentioned therein
after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.
There is a power conferred under Rule 6(3) and Rule 45 of the
said Rules of 1994 to cancel a quarrying lease.
8. It is not necessary for us to go into the reasons
recorded in the impugned order/notice at Annexure-L. Suffice
it to say that in the facts of the case, the Deputy Director of
Mines and Geology had no power to suspend the quarrying
operations under a valid and subsisting quarrying lease and
crushing activity under a subsisting licence under Section 3 of
the said Act of 2011. Therefore, only on the aforesaid ground,
we quash and set aside the impugned order/notice by granting
a liberty to the respondents to adopt appropriate proceedings.
9. Accordingly, we pass the following order:
(a) The impugned order/notice at
Annexure-L dated 30th July 2019 is
hereby quashed and set aside only on
the ground that in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the Deputy
Director of the Mines and Geology
Department had no power to suspend
the operations under a subsisting
quarrying lease and the crushing
activities under a subsisting licence
under Section 3 of the said Act of
2011;
(b) However, this judgment and order will
not preclude the concerned
respondents from initiating
proceedings for cancellation of the
lease or licence, as the case may be,
in accordance with law;
(c) We make it clear that we have made
no adjudication on the factual
assertions made in the impugned
order/notice. All the issues are kept
open to be decided in the appropriate
proceedings;
(d) Accordingly, the petition is disposed of
on the above terms.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SN
