Karnataka High Court
Deepak vs State Of Karnataka on 18 April, 2024
Bench: Chief Justice, Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:15762-DB
WP No. 4752 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 4752 OF 2024 (GM-MM-S)
BETWEEN:
1. DEEPAK
S/O MALLUKANKONKAR
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O: HP No.17, RAMNAGAR,
TAL: JOIDA, DIST: KARWAR (U.K.)
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ABHIJEET S. KANKONKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
Digitally signed VIDHAN SOUDHA
by PRABHAKAR BENGALURU - 560 001.
SWETHA
KRISHNAN
Location: High 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
Court of DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES
Karnataka VIKAS SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE DIRECTOR AND COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
KHANIJ BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:15762-DB
WP No. 4752 of 2024
4. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
KARNATAKA FOREST DEPARTMENT
ARANYA BHAVAN
18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE - 560 003.
5. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST
ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARANTAKA
VIDHAN SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
6. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
HALLIYAL DIVISION,
HALLIYAL - 581 329.
7. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST
DEPT. OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA - 581 301.
8. MOEF & CC
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT FOREST AND
CLIMATE CHANGE
KORMANGALA, BANGALORE.
9. THE DIRECTOR
KALI TIGER RESERVE
DANDELLI - 590 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.S. MAHENDRA, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED BEARING
NO.D1/GFL/KALLU QUARRY/CR-22/113/2020-21/1218 DATED
13/08/2020 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.6 & ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:15762-DB
WP No. 4752 of 2024
ORDER
Heard learned advocate Mr. S.Abhijeet Kankonkar for the
petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate
Mr.S.S.Mahendra for the respondents.
2 This writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying to set aside
the endorsement cum order dated 13.08.2020 passed by
respondent No.6 - Deputy Conservator of Forests, Haliyal Division,
Haliyal.
3 The stone quarry licence was applied by the petitioner in
respect of the land bearing Sy.No.197/01 + 02 + 243P, plot No.566,
admeasuring 1 acre situated at Akrali Village, Ramanagara Taluk,
Uttar Kannada District. The petitioner wanted to extract building
stone. The application of the petitioner for grant of ordinary stone
quarry licence made on 14.08.2018 came to be rejected and the
grant of No Objection Certificate was refused.
3.1 The declining of permission and No Objection by the
authorities was based on the letter dated 18.01.2020 issued by the
Range Forest Officer, Jagalbet and another letter-cum-report dated
20.01.2020 issued by the Assistant Conservator of Forest, Ganesh
NC: 2024:KHC:15762-DB
Gudi Sub-division. These reports were taken into account by the
competent authority for refusing the licence for extraction of
building stone.
3.2 The said authorities prepared report after conducting spot
inspection. In the report, it was given out that the proposed area
where the mining licence is requested for falls within 9.7 kms from
the Kali Tiger Reserve and Eco Sensitive Zone. Since the area
applied for falls within the Eco Sensitive Zone, It was stated that
the request could not be considered by the Single Window system
and that it was not possible to issue No Objection Certificate for
grant of quarry licence.
4. The aforesaid ground is sought to be assailed by the
petitioner by stating in the petition that in Writ Petition No.202 of
1995, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its order dated 11.12.2018
held that Eco Sensitive Zone is to be acted upon in respect of only
21 National Parks and that for those National Parks in respect of
which no proposals have been received, the periphery of 10 kms
cannot be made a ground to deny the permission.
NC: 2024:KHC:15762-DB
4.1 It was further contended that the Kali Tiger Reserve did not
fall under the said list of National Parks. Therefore, it was
submitted that the objections raised by respondent No.6 that the
mining area of the petitioner falls within the circumference of 10
kms radius of Kali Tiger Reserve is not correct and not in
accordance with the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court.
5. The aforesaid contention could hardly be countenanced.
5.1 It was also stated that the order passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Writ Petition (C) No.202 of 1995,
T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union of India and others
[(2022) 10 SCC 544], was referred to by this very Bench in
Sri D.M.Deve Gowda vs. The Principal Chief Conservator of
Forests, where the question and controversy was akin to the one
invoked in the present case. The Court took note of the affidavit
filed by the Karnataka State Authorities before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court along with the report of the Expert Committee. The
areas are classified as 'Forest lands' and 'Deemed Forests' and
such details were furnished to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
said proceedings. The order was passed on 18.08.2023 by the
NC: 2024:KHC:15762-DB
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Interlocutory Application No.44942 of
2019 which accepted the report of the Expert Committee as well as
accepted the affidavit which enlisted the lands.
5.2 The Apex Court order reads as under:-
"1. In pursuance to the judgment passed by this
court on 12.12.1996 [T N GODAVARMAN
TIRUMALPAD vs. UNION OF INDIA (1997) 2 SCC
267], the State of Karnataka has submitted that it has
constituted an Expert Committee.
2. In the affidavit, it is further stated that as per the
report of the Committee an area ad measuring
3,30,186.93 hectares has been identified as deemed
forest and the same has also been approved by the
State Government.
3. The said compliance is taken on record.
4. The application stands disposed of."
6. When the authorities found that the area applied for by the
present petitioner was within 10 kms periphery of Kali Tiger
Reserve and therefore, falling within the Eco Sensitive Zone, the
rejection of the application was based on the sound and legal
factual and legal consideration, in which no interference is required.
NC: 2024:KHC:15762-DB
7. The petition is meritless and the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
THM
