IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.57898 OF 2018 (GM-MM-S) BETWEEN:
ASHOK KUMAR H.S. S/O.R.SIDDALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT HOSAHALLI VILLAGE OBALAPURA POST-572 106 TUMKUR TALUKA TUMKUR DISTRICT ... PETITIONER (BY SRI R.G.KOLLE, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPT. OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES, VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001 3. THE DIRECTOR & DMG COMMISSIONER KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR & COMPETENT AUTHORITY DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY TUMKUR-572 101 5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & CHAIRMAN DISTRICT TASK FORCE (MINES) COMMITTEE TUMKUR-572 101 6. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, OFFICE OF THE DCF TUMKUR FOREST DIVISION TUMKUR-572 101 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V.G.BHANU PRAKASH, AGA) ---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT TO QUASH OR SET ASIDE REJECTION ORDER DATED 03.11.2018 (ANNEXURE-A) ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT – DEPUTY DIRECTOR AS WELL AS THE PROCEEDINGS OF DISTRICT TASK FORCE COMMITTEE MEETING HELD BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT – DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ANNEXURE- E).
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
2. The learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents.
3. By consent, the matter is taken up for final hearing.
By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 3rd November 2018 passed by the fourth respondent by which the application made for grant of building stone quarry lease by the petitioner, has been rejected. The rejection is only on one ground. The said ground as stated in the impugned order is that the applied area is gomal land and there is a shortage of gomal land than the required area.
4. The contention raised in the petition is that the said finding recorded by the fourth respondent is factually incorrect. Reliance is placed on the photographs to show that the land cannot be a gomal land and it has building stone deposits.
5. The learned Additional Government Advocate has tendered across the bar two documents. He states that on the same area, quarrying lease has been granted to five parties whose names are particularly mentioned in the documents tendered across the bar. On the google map of Survey No.59, the location of the sites in respect of which the quarrying lease has been granted has been shown.
6. The prayer of the petitioner was for grant of building stone quarry lease over an area of 3 acres in Survey No.59 of Hosahalli Village, Tumakuru District. The application was rejected on the ground that the applied area is a gomal land and there is a shortage of gomal land. In view of the fact that the five other parties were granted quarrying lease on the same area, the said ground of rejection cannot be sustained. We may mention here that the only ground for rejection is mentioned in the impugned order. Hence, the petition succeeds and we pass the following order:
i) The impugned order dated 3rd November 2018 passed by the fourth respondent is hereby set aside;
ii) The fourth respondent shall reconsider the application made by the petitioner in the light of what is held by us in this judgment/order and appropriate order shall be passed within a period of one month from today;
iii) The petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE LB