Karnataka High Court
Sri. K Raju vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 January, 2022
Bench: Chief Justice, Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.9942 OF 2021 (GM-MMS)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI K RAJU
S/O KANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
2. SRI M R THAMBI
S/O M RAJU
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
3. SRI K ARUNA
S/O KANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
VENKATESHWARA NAGARA
KADUR TOWN AND TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI NAIK N.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
KHANIJA BHAVANA
RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU-560001.
2. DIRECTOR/COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
KHANIJA BHAVANA
RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU-560001.
-2-
3. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
OFFICE OF THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.S.MAHENDRA, AGA)
---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING
THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 IN NUMBERS
(i) THE 3RD RESPONDENT ISSUED ENDORSEMENT IN DATED
08.10.2020 IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER I.E, ANNEXURE-
B AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, SURAJ
GOVINDARAJ J. MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Sri S.S.Mahendra, learned Additional Government
Advocate accepts notice for respondents.
2. This petition is filed seeking the following
reliefs:-
"a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any
other writ or order quashing the Endorsement
issued by the 3rd respondent in numbers:-
i) The 3rd respondent issued
endorsement in No.DMG/SGEKM/ESTABLISH.
APP/2020-21/2027 dated 08.10.2020 in
favour of the 1st petitioner i.e., Annexure-B.
ii) The 3rd respondent issued
endorsement in No.DMG/SGEKM/ESTABLISH.
APP/2020-21/2028 dated 08.10.2020 in
favour of the 1st petitioner i.e., Annexure-C.
iii) The 3rd respondent issued
endorsement in No.DMG/SGEKM/ESTABLISH.
APP/2020-21/2026 dated 08.10.2020 in
favour of the 2nd petitioner i.e., Annexure-E.
iv) The 3rd respondent issued
endorsement in No.DMG/SGEKM/ESTABLISH.
APP/2020-21/2029 dated 08.10.2020 in
favour of the 2nd petitioner i.e., Annexure-D.
v) The 3rd respondent issued
endorsement in No.DMG/SGEKM/ESTABLISH.
APP/2020-21/2020 dated 08.10.2020 in
favour of the 3rd petitioner i.e., Annexure-F.
The above endorsements issued by the
3rd respondent i.e., Annexure-B-F as being
violated of Article 14 and 19 of the
Constitution of India.
b) Issue a writ of mandamus direction
rd
3 respondent to re-consider the applications
of the petitioners and to pass appropriate
orders following the applications of the
petitioners for grant of quarrying
lease/quarrying license of 1 acre of land in
Sy.No.118 of Malleshwara Village, 1 acre of
land in Sy.No.52 of Thuruvanahalli Village,
Kaduru Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District, 2
acres of land in Sy.no.118 of Malleshwara
Village, Kaduru Taluk, Chikkamagaluru
District, 3 acres of land in Sy.No.118 of
Malleshwara Village, Kadur Taluk,
Chikkamagaluru District, 1 acre of land in
Sy.No.52 of Thuruvanahalli Village, Kaduru
Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District.
c) To call for records and grant such
other relief/s deems fit by this Hon'ble Court,
in the interest of justice."
3. The case of the petitioners is that they had
applied for grant of quarrying lease on 14.08.2013 and
11.05.2015. Sri N.R.Naik, learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that the applications are saved
applications in terms of Rule 8-B of the Karnataka Minor
Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short, 'Rules, 1994')
and therefore, he submits that the order of rejection of the
applications made by the petitioners be set aside. In this
regard, he relies upon the decision of this Court passed in
W.P.Nos.47911-47914/2018 and connected matters dated
04.12.2018.
4. Per contra learned Additional Government
Advocate relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case
of K.Thirumalesh Vs. State of Karnataka and others
reported in 2020 (1) Kar. L.J.241 (DB) and contends that
the applications of the petitioners are not saved
applications inasmuch as the No Objection Certificates
which are required to be received from Revenue
Department, Forest Department, Environmental Clearance
and also Joint Inspection Report have not been received as
on 12.08.2016 and thereby the applications are ineligible as
per Rule 8-B (2) (a) of Rules, 1994.
5. Having heard the submissions of the petitioners'
counsel, we are of the considered opinion that the decision
of this Court in the case of K.Thirumalesh which has
considered the submission of the petitioner would be
applicable. The conclusions of the judgment cited supra are
found at paragraph 47 thereof cited are reproduced
hereunder for easy reference:
"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."
6. In view of the above, there are no merits in the
above petition. The applications of the petitioners are not
saved in terms of Rule 8-B of Rules, 1994 and as such, writ
petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
KPS
