IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANA SWAMY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 9533/2017 (GM-MM-S) BETWEEN:
M/S. ANAND MINING INDUSTRIES MANDIHAL, REP BY ITS PARTNER & PA HOLDER K.T.PATIL AGE: 81 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS, R/O # 90 ADYAPAK NAGAR, NAVANAGAR HUBBALLI-25 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI G S BALAGANGADHAR, ADVOCATE) AND 1.STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY MINES & GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001 2.THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER BELGAVI-590 001 3.THE DY. COMMISSIONER/THE CHAIRMAN DISTRICT STONE CRUSHER LICENCING AND REGULATION AUTHORITY (MINES AND GEOLOGY WING) GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA D.C.COMPOUND DHARWAD-580 001 4.THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST MINES AND GEOLOGY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA D.C.COMPOUND DHARWAD-580 001 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V G BHANUPRAKASH, AGA ) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE DECISION IN THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 28.10.2015 PRESIDED BY THE DISTRICT LEVEL TASK FORCE COMMITTEE VIDE ANNEXURE-J; REFUSAL LETTER ISSUED BY THE LICENCING AUTHORITY DATED 08.01.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-J1 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner was running a stone crusher unit in Survey No.120 measuring 3 acres of Mandihal Village, Dharwad Taluk and District, after obtaining licence in the year 1985. Petitioner filed an application for renewal of licence and the same was rejected. Petitioner challenged the rejection order before the Regional Commissioner, Belagavi, under Section 15 of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011. The Regional Commissioner, by order dated 18.10.2016, has rejected the appeal. Hence, this writ petition.
2. Shri G.S.Balagangadhar, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been running the unit since 1985 and no cogent reasons are forthcoming in the rejection order passed by the Regional Commissioner. Accordingly, he prays that this writ petition be allowed.
3. Shri V.G.Bhanuprakash, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that since there exists a road within 100 metres from the unit, the Regional Commissioner has rightly rejected the appeal.
4. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the records.
5. Perusal of Regional Commissioner’s order does not disclose as to where exactly the road is situated, when the road is formed and what is the distance between the road and the crusher unit. Unless cogent reasons are recorded, an order which meets a citizen with civil consequences is unsustainable in law. In the circumstances, this writ petition merits consideration.
6. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The order dated 18.10.2016 passed by the Regional Commissioner is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Regional Commissioner with a direction to reconsider and pass appropriate orders by recording cogent reasons within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after issuing notice to the petitioner. All contentions are kept open.
No costs.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE bkv