IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND 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.18330 OF 2019 (GM-MM-S) BETWEEN:
M/S APEX CRUSSHERS HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SURVEY NO 200 & 203 HIRIKATI VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI GUNDLUPET TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER NAVIN KUMAR GUPTA S/O ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA AGED 42 YEARS (BY SHRI SHIVA KUMAR K.B., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHAMRAJANAGAR DISTRICT CHAMARAJANAGAR - 570005 ... PETITIONER 2. THE CHAIRMAN CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT STONE CRUSHERS LICENSING & REGULATION AUTHORITY CHAMARAJANAGAR - 570005 3. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST & MEMBER SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY NO. 316, 317, 3RD FLOOR JILLADALITHA BHAVANA CHAMARAJANGARA - 571313 (BY SRI V.G. BHANUPRAKASH, AGA) ---
... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 20.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner was granted a licence under Section 3 of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 (for short ‘the said Act’). A copy of the licence annexed as Annexure-A shows that the licence was valid upto 31st March 2018. An application for renewal of the said licence was filed by the petitioner in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act on 21st March 2018. An endorsement dated 20th November 2018 was issued by the Deputy Director holding that the application for renewal has not been submitted three months prior to the expiry of period of the licence. It was observed in the impugned notice that there is no provision under which the said application for renewal can be considered.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has tendered across the Bar, a memo seeking to incorporate an additional prayer. His first submission is that the licence is erroneously granted only upto 31st March 2018 and the same ought to have been granted upto 31st March 2019. He submitted that if in terms of Section 5 of the said Act, the licence would have been granted upto 31st March 2019, the application for renewal made by the petitioner is within time. He tendered across the Bar certain orders showing that in similar cases, the term of the licence has been extended by the Authorities. Secondly, he submitted that under sub-section (1) of Section 4 or under any provision of the said Act, the consequences of not applying for renewal within the time provided therein have not been incorporated and, therefore, the period mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 4 for applying for renewal is not mandatory. Lastly, he submitted that both the application for renewal and the application for grant of a fresh licence under the said Act are required to be filed in the same form (in Form-A) and therefore, the application made by the petitioner for renewal can be treated as an application for a fresh licence.
3. The learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the petition.
4. We have considered the submissions. As far as the first submission is concerned, the licence was granted to the petitioner on 13th February 2014 which clearly specifies that the same was valid till 31st March 2018. Without making any application for correcting the date of expiry mentioned therein, the petitioner acted upon the licence and, on 21st March 2018 even applied for renewal thereof. It is, therefore, too late in the day now to raise a contention that the licence ought to have been granted upto 31st March 2019. As per sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act, an application for renewal of licence shall be made to the Licensing Authority three months before the expiry of the licence.
5. The legal position is well settled. If a statute requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, the same shall be done in that manner and in no other manner. If the applicant who has been granted a licence wants renewal, he has to make an application within the prescribed period of three months. If such an application is not made within the prescribed time, the Licensing Authority does not get power to renew the licence. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that the provision of applying within three months is not mandatory.
6. The Licensing Authority may have extended the period of licence in other cases. Even assuming that in other cases it has been done, as observed earlier, it is too late in the day for the petitioner to seek correction of the date of expiry.
7. It is true that the form prescribed by the Rules framed under the said Act for making an application for a fresh licence and making an application for renewal of licence is the same. A perusal of the notice at Annexure-E shows that there is a specific finding recorded that the application for renewal cannot be considered as it is not made within the stipulated time. The petitioner specifically applied for renewal of licence by paying fees for renewal. The application was processed as an application for renewal. After the Licensing Authority declined to grant renewal of the licence for the reason stated in notice dated 20th November 2018, now the said application cannot be directed to be treated as an application for grant of a fresh licence.
8. Accordingly, we find no merit in the petition and the same is rejected. However, rejection of this petition will not prevent the petitioner from making an application for grant of a fresh licence in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act. If such an application is made, the same shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.
Such an application, if made, shall be disposed of in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of the application.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE AHB