Karnataka High Court
M/S Prabhavathi Stone Curshers vs State Of Karnataka on 28 May, 2025
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. N.V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
WRIT PETITION NO.4010 OF 2024 (GM-MM-S)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.9037 OF 2022 (GM-MM-S)
&
CCC NO.48 OF 2023 (CIVIL)
IN W.P. NO.4010 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. M/S PRABHAVATHI STONE CRUSHERS
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI K.S. NARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
S/O K.V. SRINIVASE GOWDA
DOOR NO.2712, 2ND CROSS
17TH MAIN, (SNAKE SHYAM ROAD)
2ND STAGE, VIJAYANAGAR
MYSORE - 570 030
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI S.S. NAGANAND, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SRI S. KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DISTRICT STONE CRUSHER LICENSING AND
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 455
-2-
2. SENIOR GEOLOGIST
AND MEMBER SECRETARY
DISTRICT STONE CRUSHER LICENSING AND
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
(MINES DIVISION), MANDYA DISTRICT
MANDYA - 571 455
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE AN ORDER, DIRECTION, WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 TO
PASS AN ORDER TREATING FORM-C LICENCE
NO.34/2018-19/2806 DATED 02.02.2019 GRANTED TO
PETITIONER IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN GRANTED FOR A
PERIOD OF 20 YEARS UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) OF
SECTION 5 AS AMENDED BY ACT 28/2020 VIDE
ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.
IN W.P. NO. 9037 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. M/S PRABHAVATHI STONE CRUSHERS
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI K.S. NARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
S/O K.V. SRINIVASE GOWDA
DOOR NO. 2712, 2ND CROSS
17TH MAIN (SNAKE SHYAM ROAD)
2ND STAGE, VIJAYANAGAR
MYSORE - 570 030
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI S.S. NAGANAND, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SRI S. KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
-3-
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND
COMMERCE (SSI AND TEXTILES)
M.S. BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001
2. DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001
3. DISTRICT REGULATION OF STONE CRUSHER
AND LICENSING AUTHORITY
REP. BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CUM CHAIRMAN, MANDYA DISTRICT
MANDYA - 571 401
4. SENIOR GEOLOGIST (MINES)
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GOLOGY
VIDYANAGAR 1ST CROSS
MANDYA DISTRICT
MANDYA - 571 401
5. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MANDYA DISTRICT
MANDYA - 571 401
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE AN ORDER, DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE
OF CERTIORARI QAUSHING THE ORDER ANNEXURE-A
DATED 31.03.2022 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
CANCELLING LICENCE FORM-C GRANTED TO THE
PETITIONER IS ILLEGAL AND VOID IN LAW AND ETC.
-4-
IN C.C.C. NO.48 OF 2023 (CIVIL)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S. PRABHAVATHI STONE CRUSHERS
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI K.S. NARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
S/O K.V. SRINIVASE GOWDA
DOOR NO. 2712, 2ND CROSS
17TH MAIN (SNAKE SHYAM ROAD)
2ND STATE, VIJAYANAGAR
MYSORE - 570 030
... COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI S.S. NAGANAND, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SRI S. KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DR. H.N. GOPALAKRISHNA
CHAIRMAN
DISTRICT STONE CRUSHER LICENSING
AND REGULATION AUTHORITY AND
ALSO DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MANDYA DISTRICT
MANDYA - 571 401
2. SMT. PADMAJA
SENIOR GEOLOGIST-CUM-MEMBER SECRETARY
DISTRICT STONE CRUSHER LICENSING AND
REGULATION AUTHORITY
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
MANDYA DISTRICT
MANDYA - 571 401
... ACCUSED
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND
COMMERCE (MINES)
-5-
VIKAS SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001
...PRO FORMA
RESPONDENT
(BY SRI NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKAR, AGA)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12
OF THE OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT R/W
ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING
TO SUMMON AND PROSECUTE AND PUNISH THE
ACCUSED FOR THEIR DELIBERATE AND WILFUL
DISOBEDIENCE OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
28.04.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY THIS COURT IN
W.P.NO.9037/2022 AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS AND CCC HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON
FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS
PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N.V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)
The two captioned petitions involve the same subject
matter. Not only the facts are common, but the issues are
similar and identical and the parties are the same. The third is
a contempt petition arising out of the proceedings of Writ
Petition No.9037 of 2022. In that view, all the three petitions
were heard together to be treated for disposal simultaneously
by this common judgment.
2. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. S.S. Naganand with
learned advocate Mr. S. Kumar in both the petitions for the
petitioner as well as in the contempt petition for the
complainant, learned Additional Government Advocate
Smt. Niloufer Akbar for the respondents in the writ petitions and
learned Additional Government Advocate Mr. Naveen
Chandrashekar for the respondents in the contempt
proceedings.
3. Writ Petition No.9037 of 2022 was filed by the petitioner-
M/s. Prabhavathi Stone Crushers first in point of time, wherein
the prayer was made to set aside order dated 31.03.2022
passed by respondent No.3-the District Regulation of Stone
Crusher and Licensing Authority. Thereby the Licence Form-C
granted to the petitioner came to be cancelled. Stated in
nutshell, the case of the petitioner in this petition was that
licence was granted to the petitioner for manufacture of
Aggregates in respect of the land bearing Survey No.117/2
admeasuring 2 Acres situated at Alpahalli Village,
Pandavapura Taluka, Mandya District. The cancellation of the
licence was based on the ground that the property was located
within 100 meters from the Major District Road.
3.1 The petitioner stated that on 15.05.2017, it made a
request for grant of stone crusher licence filling the necessary
Form-A by giving the requisite details and furnishing the
relevant documents. The Licensing Authority and other
Authorities namely, the Senior Geologist of the Department of
Mines and Geology, the Tahsildar of the Revenue Department,
the Range Forest Officer of the Forest Department and the
Environment Officer of the Karnataka State Pollution Control
Board conducted a spot inspection. The report was submitted
recommending that the property in question in respect of which
the licence was asked for by the petitioner was suitable for
declaration as safer zone for the purpose of grant of Form-C to
establish the stone crusher unit.
3.1.1 The Licensing Authority thereafter considered the report
and declared the area to be safer zone as per the Notification
dated 14.12.2017. It is stated that thereafter the Forest
Authorities granted approval including the Karnataka State
Pollution Control Board which gave Consent for Operation to
commence production of Aggregates at the land property. It is
stated by the petitioner that Rs.5.5 crores was invested in
establishing the stone crusher unit.
3.1.2 A show cause notice dated 23.04.2021 came to be
issued by the Competent Authority stating that the place for
which the licence was granted to the petitioner was at a
distance of 73 meters from the Major District Road and thus
within 100 meters, it was violative of Section 6(1)(b) of the
Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011. The
petitioner replied to the said show cause notice on 06.05.2021.
3.1.3 The petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in Writ
Petition No.734 of 2020, in which it was held that once the land
is declared as safer zone and licence was granted on that
basis, subsequently the Licensing Authority has no jurisdiction
to cancel such declaration. It appears that subsequently, the
order dated 31.07.2021 was passed by the Authority cancelling
the licence on the ground of the distance which was claimed to
be less than 100 meters from the Major District Road, which
decision came to be challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ
Petition No.15339 of 2021. This court remanded the matter so
as to afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which was
not given while passing the order dated 31.07.2021.
3.1.4 It is next stated that the competent officials of the State
Government again obtained a report under Section 9(2)(a) of
the Act. It appears that the fresh report suggested that the
distance was 35 meters. The petitioner therefore contended
that the Authority acted on the basis of inconsistent and
contradictory reports to cancel the licence although at the time
of initial grant of licence in the year 2017, the report was
obtained and the measurement showed that the land of the
petitioner was outside the peripheral boundary of 100 meters.
3.2 The petitioner contended that safer zone in respect of
the land property where the crusher unit was established was
declared as back as on 14.12.2017 and the show cause notice
was issued in the year 2021, which is after a gap of five years.
It was contended that for the subsequent turn around by the
Authorities, there is no factual basis. The fresh report which
was submitted categorically stated that the distance between
the property and the Major District Road was 2 kilometers.
Subsequently, it was shown to be 35 meters to be falling within
100 meters which is factually incorrect and erroneous, it was
submitted.
- 10 -
3.2.1 The petitioner relied on the provisions of Section 6(3) of
the Act to submit that in any case, the subsequent
development will not constitute a ground to cancel the
notification declaring the area to be safer zone. It was
contended that when the licence was granted way back in the
year 2017 after verifying the details and all the competent
authorities having given necessary approvals, it was not liable
to be recalled.
3.3 In the aforesaid Writ Petition No.9037 of 2022, interim
order dated 28.04.2022 came to be passed by this Court. The
order, in its relevant part, reads as under,
"In the order dated 31.07.2021 at Annexure-K,
the authority has opined that the distance
between the land in question and the District
Major road is about 73 Mtrs. However there is
another report dated 27.10.2021, wherein it is
stated that the distance is about 35 Mtrs.
Therefore, there is some confusion even in
the mind of the respondent authorities. The
matter requires re-consideration and factual
information is required to be secured. In terms
of the amended provision of Section 6(1)(b) of
the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers
Act, 2011, the prohibited distance is 50 mtrs.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has made
out a prima facie case. Consequently, there
shall be an ad-interim order of stay of the
operation and execution of the impugned
order dated 31.03.2022 at Annexure-A, till the
next date of hearing."
- 11 -
3.3.1 It is the aforesaid order which was brought under the
contempt jurisdiction of this court by filing CCC No.48 of 2023.
4. During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the
very petitioner had an occasion to file Writ Petition No.4010 of
2024 wherein the prayer was advanced for issuance of writ
against the respondent-authorities to direct them to treat the
Licence Form-C given to the petitioner under the provisions of
the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 to be
deemed to have been granted for a period of twenty years in
view of coming into force of Section 5(2) as amended by Act
No.28 of 2020. The basic premise for seeking the prayer in the
second writ petition to direct the respondents to consider
Form-C Licence No.34/2018-19/2806 dated 02.02.2019
granted to the petitioner was that deeming provision to be
deemed to have been granted about period of twenty years
under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Amended Act, would
operate.
5. Having noticed the facts, two aspects emerge to be
addressed. Firstly, when the safer zone was declared in the
year 2017 for granting the land property to the petitioner for the
purpose of establishing the stone crusher unit, the necessary
- 12 -
statutory conditions were satisfied or not. Second is regarding
deemed continuation of the licence for twenty years from the
date of original grant. Second aspect would surpass and
override the first if the licence is in existence and valid on the
date of coming into force of Section 5(2) as amended.
5.1 Section 6 of the Act which deals with conditions for
declaration of safer zone may be looked into. The Section
reads as under,
"Section 6-Conditions for declaring Safer
Zone:- The declaration of safer zone for stone
crushers under this Act, shall be subject to
the following conditions, namely: -
(1) The safer zone shall not be located within: -
(a) Two Hundred meter from the
limits of the national highways or
State Highways;
(b) One Hundred meter from the
limits of major district roads and fifty
meters from the limits of other
roads;
(c) Five hundred meter from
revenue village, temples, schools;
(d) The boundary of Municipal
Corporations, City Municipal
Corporation, Town Municipal
Council.
"Explanation: For the purpose of this Act, any
habitation, school, temples or road coming up
subsequent to declaration of safer zone shall
- 13 -
not affect the operation or continuance of
such declaration and shall not affect any
extension of licence under section 5."
5.2 One of the conditions is that in order that the land is in
safer zone, it shall not be located inter alia within 100 meters
from the limits of Major District Roads, as per Section 6(1)(b)
above. It is an undisputed fact that when the Licence Form-C
was granted to the petitioner in the year 2017 as per the
Notification dated 14.12.2017, the factum of distance was
verified after obtaining the report and it was duly noticed that
the land did not fall within the peripheral range of 100 meters
from the Major District Road.
5.3 The notification which was then issued may be usefully
extracted to be read as under,
"GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District,
Mandya 571401, Karnataka State
Ph.No.08232-224600(0) Website: www.mandya.nic.in
_______________________________________
No.Gani/Bu.V./C.R./CrusherASu/2017-18
Date: 14.12.2017
NOTIFICATION
Sub: Issuance of Notification for Safer Zone for
establishment of Stone Crusher Unit under Karnataka
- 14 -
Regulation of Stone Crusher Unit and Licensing
(Amendment) Act 2013 - reg.
Ref: 1) Proceedings of the Meeting of District
Regulation of Stone Crusher and Licensing Authority
held on 08.12.2017:
1) Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crusher
(Amendment) Act 2013 dated: 26.12.2013:
With reference to the above subject, the
following persons have requested to declare their
patta lands as Safer Zone for establishing Stone
Crusher Unit and in this background under Section
6(3) of the Act, the Revenue, Department of Mines
and Geology, Forest Department and Environment
Officer of Karnataka State Pollution Control Board
have conducted the Joint Inspection of the areas and
submitted the report and as per the report, under
Section 8 of Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crusher
Unit (Amendment) Act 2013 the matter was discussed
in the meeting held on 08.12.2017 under the
chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner. In the said
Meeting approval was given and accepted to declare
the areas as Safer Zone. Therefore, under Section
6(3) of Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crusher Unit
and Licensing (Amendment) Act 2013 the following
areas are declared as Safer Zone. The details of the
approved safer zone areas are as hereunder:
Sl. Name of Applicant Taluk Village Sy. No. Extent Gunta Type
No and address Acre of land
.
02 M/s Prabhavathi 116/2, 2 00 Patta
Stone Crusher, Pandava AlpahaIli land
Prop.K.S.Narayana pura 117/2
son of late
K.V.Srinivasego
wda, Alpahalli
Village,
Chinakurali Hobli,
Pandavapura
Taluk.
The approval has been given in the meeting
to declare the aforesaid 10 areas as Safer
Zone for establishment of Stone Crusher Unit,
this Notification is issued subject to the
- 15 -
conditions that to follow the conditions
imposed under Karnataka Regulation of
Stone Crusher Unit and Licensing
(Amendment) Act 2013 and directions and
guidelines issued by the Government from
time to time and to establish the Stone
Crusher Unit as per the rules of the Karnataka
State Pollution Control Board.
Sd/-
Deputy Commissioner and Chairman
District Regulation of Stone Crusher &
Licensing Authority, Mandya Dist.
Mandya."
5.4 It may be further noticed that as per the Explanation of
Section 6 above, events subsequent to declaration of safer
zone would not affect the operation or continuance of the
declaration of safer zone and it shall not further affect any
extension of licence under Section 5. There is no gainsaying
that the petitioner would be entitled to get the benefit of
operational ambit of the aforesaid extension.
5.5 Furthermore, sub-section (2) of Section 5, as amended
by Act No.28 of 2020, provided as under,
"(2) Subject to payment of such annual regulation
fee as may be prescribed, all existing crusher
licenses granted before the commencement of
Karnataka Stone Crusher Regulation (Amendment)
Act, 2020 shall be deemed to have been granted
for a period of twenty years from the date of original
grant and shall be extended accordingly.
- 16 -
5.6 Under the aforesaid provision which contains a deeming
fiction to provide that all existing crusher licences granted
before the commencement of the Amendment Act shall be
deemed to have been granted for a period of twenty years from
the date of original grant and that, it shall be accordingly
extended. Recapitulating that in respect of the land Survey
No.117/2 admeasuring 2 Acres at Alpahalli Village,
Pandavapura Taluka, Mandya District which is granted to the
petitioner for stone crushing unit, it was declared to be in safer
zone by the Notification dated 14.12.2017.
5.7 After issuing Safer Zone Notification covering the land in
2017, the Licence Form-C was granted by the Deputy
Commissioner-the Licensing Authority on 02.02.2019. Before
that, the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board issued to the
petitioner the Consent for Operation. The said licence was
sought to be cancelled by the Authorities by taking a stand that
it was located within a distance of 100 meters of the Major
District Road and the order dated 31.03.2022 was passed
cancelling the licence which order was challenged by the
petitioner by filing Writ Petition No.9037 of 2022 as stated
above. The court passed the interim order and stayed that
- 17 -
order. In view of stay of the order, the licence of the petitioner
stood restored and continued to be valid.
5.8 The petitioner is entitled to receive the benefit of deemed
extension of licence as per the amended Section 5(2) for a
period of twenty years from the date of the original licence.
The petitioner's licence was in existence and valid to attract the
beneficial deeming provision under Section 5(2) of the Act.
This aspect would operate outweighingly.
6. The relief in Writ Petition No.9037 of 2022 has already
worked out for the petitioner as interim order was granted and it
has been in operation continuing the validity of licence. Even
otherwise, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in view of the
Explanation to Section 6 of the Act. The order dated
31.03.2022 passed by respondent No.3-the District Regulation
of Stone Crusher and Licensing Authority is liable to be set
aside. It is set aside.
6.1 Writ Petition No.4010 of 2024 deserves to be allowed. It
is declared that the petitioner is deemed to have been granted
extension for its licence for a period of twenty years under
Section 5(2) of the Amended Act No.28 of 2020. Consequently,
respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to treat Form-C Licence
- 18 -
No.34/2018-19/2806 dated 02.02.2019 granted to the petitioner
to have been extended for twenty years from the said date.
7. Both the petitions stand allowed in the aforesaid terms.
The contempt petition will not survive.
Sd/-
(N.V. ANJARIA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(M.I.ARUN)
JUDGE
BKV
