Smt.Roopa Devi vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 3700 Kant

                          -1-


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                       PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE

                          AND

   THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

   WRIT PETITION NO.16198 OF 2021 (GM-MMS)

BETWEEN:


SMT. ROOPA DEVI
W/O C.DIVYA SWAROOP
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
RESIDING AT: NO.F-84
"AADYA", 5TH CROSS
MANYTH RESIDENCY
BENGALURU - 560 045
                                      ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI JAVEED S., ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI KARTHIK B.Y., ADVOCATE)

AND:

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

2. DIRECTOR / COMMISSIONER
   DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
   KHANIJA BHAVAN
   R.C. ROAD
   BANGALORE- 560 001

3. SENIOR GEOLOGIST
   DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
   OFFICE OF THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST
   DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND
                                 -2-


   DISTRICT OFFICE COMPLEX
   SHIDLAGATTA ROAD
   CHIKKBALLAPUR- 562 101
                                                   ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI S.S.MAHENDRA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
                                ---
      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENDORSEMENT     BEARING    NO.GaBhuEe/HiBhuChi/KaGaGu.A-
98/2017-18/2252-2253 DATED 19.06.2017 REJECTING THE
APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF QUARRYING LEASE/LICENSE OF
BUILDING STONES ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 (I.E.
ANNEXURE-A) AS BEING VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 AND 19 (1)
(g) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                              ORDER

The instant writ petition has been filed seeking for the

following reliefs:

I. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ or Order quashing the Endorsement bearing No.GaBhuEe / HiBhuChi/ KaGaGu. A-98 / 2017-18 / 2252-2253 dated 19.06.2017 rejecting the application for grant of quarrying lease / license of building stones issued by the Respondent No.3 (i.e. Annexure A) as being violative of Article 14 and 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution of India;

II. Issue a Writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No.3 to re-consider the application of the Petitioner for grant of quarrying lease / license in Sy.No.44 of H Kurubarahalli Village Chikkaballpur Taluk and District.

III. Pass any other order or directions as this Hon'ble Court feels fit."

2. Learned Additional Government Advocate

appearing for the respondents informs that under similar

facts and circumstances, this Court has been pleased to

dismiss the writ petition holding that the petitioner is not

eligible under sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B of the Karnataka

Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short, "the said

Rules of 1994).

3. In this regard, learned Additional Government

Advocate has relied on the judgment of this Court dated

09.08.2021 passed in Writ Petition No.9714/2021 (GM-

MMS). The operative portion of the order is reproduced

below:

"6. All applications for grant of quarrying leases which were pending as on 12th August, 2016 were declared as ineligible by virtue of sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B of the said Rules of 1994. Only those applications which were covered by any of the clauses (a) to (d) and (d-1) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B of the said Rules of 1994 were saved from the applicability of sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B of the said Rules of 1994. In this case, the petitioner is relying on clause (d-1) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B of the said Rules of 1994. The requirement of clause (d-1) is that no objection certificates must have been received by the Department of Mines and Geology before 12th August, 2016 from the Deputy Conservator of Forest and the Assistant Commissioner. The other requirement is of receiving of the Department a joint inspection report of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Director or Senior Geologist before 12th August, 2016. Even assuming that a deeming fiction was available under sub- rule (6) of Rule 8 of the said Rules of 1994, the same is available only in relation to no objection certificates and

not in respect of the joint inspection report as contemplated by clause (d-1) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B of the said Rules of 1994. Admittedly, the joint inspection report was not received before 12th August, 2016 by the Department. Therefore, one of the conditions for applicability of clause (d-1) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B of the said Rules of 1994 was not satisfied in this case. Hence, the impugned order is right only to the extent that the application made by the petitioner was ineligible under sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B of the said Rules of 1994 as none of the exceptions specifically carved out by clauses (a) to

(d) and (d-1) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B of the said Rules of 1994 were applicable in this case. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion drawn in the impugned order is correct.

Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been

able to establish before the Court that the application

preferred by the petitioner before the amendment in the

Rules of 1994 was a saved application.

5. In view of the above, we dismiss the writ

petition in terms of the order dated 09.08.2021 passed in

Writ Petition No.9714/2021.

SD/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

SD/-

JUDGE

SV