IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT PETITION NO.18386 OF 2018 (GM-MM-S) BETWEEN:
M/S AMBIKA MINERALS, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPERIETOR, SMT. ANNAPURNA CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, NO.594, C/O VELU NAYAKAR, 9TH CROSS, TRIVENI ROAD, DIWANARA PALYA, BANGALORE-560 022 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.M. CHANDRASHEKAR, PARTY-IN-PERSON) AND 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIATE, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY, NO.49,KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
3. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST (MINERALS), DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY BELLARY.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELLARY DISTRICT, BELLARY.
5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BELLARY SUB DIVISION, BELLARY.
6. THE TAHASILDAR, SIRAGUPPA TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 01.06.2011 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNX-AA AND ENDORSEMENT DTD 28.08.2015/06.03.2017 VIDE ANNX-AE AND ORDER FOR GRANT OF QUARRYING LEASE FOR A PERIOD OF 30 YEARS ETC.
---
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER As noted in the order dated 22nd July 2019, we have permitted the constituted Attorney to represent the case of the petitioner only in the peculiar facts of the case.
2. The petitioner made an application for grant of quarrying lease. The said application was rejected by the second respondent -Director of Department of Mines and Geology.
3. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the application communicated by the second respondent, a revision petition was filed by the petitioner by invoking Rule 53 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short ‘the said Rules’). By an order dated 26th August 2015, the second respondent held that the revision petition was not maintainable.
4. According to the case of the petitioner, a copy of the said order of the Revisional Authority was furnished to the petitioner along with the reply dated 6th March 2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short ‘the RTI Act’).
5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. We have also gone through the relevant provisions of the said Rules which were in existence as on the date on which the endorsement dated 1st June 2011 was issued by which the application made by the petitioner was rejected.
6. Rule 11 provided that the applications made for grant of quarry lease under the said Rule shall be placed before a Committee constituted as per the said Rules and based on the recommendations of the Committee, the State Government was required to pass an order of grant or renewal of a quarrying lease or of rejection of the application. In the present case, from the Endorsement dated 1st June 2011 (Annexure – AA), it appears that the second respondent has rejected the application made by the petitioner in view of the recommendations of the Rule 11 Committee. The state Government did not pass any order on the basis of the recommendation.
5. A revision petition was preferred by the petitioner under Rule 53 of the said Rules which was maintainable before the State Government in view of Clause (A) of Rule 53. However, we find that the revision petition was decided on 26th August 2015 by the second respondent –Director of Mines and Geology and not by the State Government. Hence, both the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. However, the issue whether sub-section (1) of Rule 8-B of the said Rules, which has been amended on 12th August 2016, will apply to the case of the petitioner will have to be kept open.
7. Accordingly, we pass the following :
ORDER (i) The endorsements dated 1st June 2011 and 26th August 2015 are hereby quashed and set aside;
(ii) We direct the State Government to take an appropriate decision on the application made by the petitioner for grant of quarrying lease as expeditiously as possible and in any event, within two months from the date on which the copy of the order is made available;
(iii) We make it clear that we have not examined the issue of applicability of Rule 8-B(1) of the Rules, as amended on 12th August 2016, to the case of the petitioner;
(iv) The petition is disposed of with the above directions.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE Snc