IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.51428 OF 2019 (GM-MMS) BETWEEN:
ASHOK SON OF SHIDDAPA SARVI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, RESIDENT OF PATTAGUNDI, TALUK: GOKAK, DISTRICT BELAGAVI – 591 227.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI : SHIVALLI SHIVAYOGI YALLAPPAGOUDA , ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR / COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, APMC ROAD, SANGAMESHWARA NAGARA, BELAGAVI – 590 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.V.KRISHNA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO EXECUTE THE QUARRYING LEASE DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE GOVERNMENT LAND BEARING SY.NO.2(P) MEASURING 04.30 ACRES OF BILKUNDI VILLAGE, PUSUANT TO NOTIFICATION DATED 25.04.2015/27.04.2015 AND ALSO AS PER ORDER/DIRECTION DATED 04.01.2016 BEING ISSUED BY THE JOINT DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, NORTH REGION, BELLARY WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD THAT MAY BE FILED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT (ANNEXURE – B AND E) THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner is seeking for a writ of mandamus directing 3rd respondent herein to execute quarrying lease deed in his favour in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.2(P) measuring 04.30 acres of Bilkundi Village, Gokak Taluk for extracting ordinary building stone.
2. The petitioner made an application for grant of quarrying lease under the provisions of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short, ‘the Rules’). By a notification dated 25.4.2015/ 27.4.2015 at Annexure-B issued under Rule 27 of the said Rules, sanction was accorded by the State Government for grant of renewal of quarrying lease to the petitioner.
3. By a communication dated 7.11.2015/ 23.11.2015, the petitioner was informed by 3rd respondent that the notification issued on 25.4.2015/27.4.2015 has been cancelled and the application dated 1.1.2015 made by the petitioner has been rejected. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition. By an order dated 4.1.2016, the revision petition was allowed by setting aside the communication dated 7.11.2015/23.11.2015 by directing the 3rd respondent to take steps under Rule 30(1) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amended) Rules, 2013 and to submit the compliance report. Further, The environment clearance was granted by the State Government’s Environment Impact Assessment Authority by a communication dated 14.12.2015.
4. Therefore, the petitioner is seeking for a writ of mandamus directing 3rd respondent to execute quarrying lease within a time frame.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as a result of the order passed in the revision petition, the order dated 4.1.2016 was revived and therefore, there is no option for the State but to execute the lease.
6. The learned High Court Government Pleader for the State resisted the petition by relying upon the amended provisions of Rule 8B of the said Rules as amended on 12.8.2016 and urged that no such directions can be issued by this Court in view of the amended Rule 8-B(1).
7. We have heard Sri Shivalli Shivayogi Yallappagouda, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri B.V. Krishna, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
8. As stated earlier, the order of sanction dated 25.4.2015/27.4.2015 was issued by the State Government in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 27 of the Rules of 1994. Though the said order of sanction was cancelled, the effect of the order dated 4.1.2016 passed by the revisional authority is that by setting aside the order dated 7.11.2015/23.11.2015 by which the order dated 25.4.2015/27.4.2015 stood cancelled, the said order was revived.
9. In the facts of the case, the reliance placed on the provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B of the said Rules as amended with effect from 12.8.2016 will not assist the State Government. The said provision is applicable to all applications received which were pending as on 12.8.2016. The effect of the order of the revisional authority is that on 12.8.2016, the application made by the petitioner on 1.1.2015 was not pending as it stood disposed off by virtue of the sanction order dated 25.4.2015/27.4.2015. Therefore, sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B of the said Rules will have no application in this case and consequently, there is no occasion to invoke sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B of the Rules.
10. Now that the environment clearance has been granted to the petitioner, the State has no choice but to execute the lease in terms of the sanction order dated 25.4.2015/27.4.2015 after verifying that the petitioner has complied with various other procedural requirements.
11. Accordingly, the petition must succeed and we pass the following order:
(i) We direct the third respondent to execute the lease deed in terms of the order dated 25.4.2015/27.4.2015 in favour of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date on which a copy of this order becomes available to the third respondent;
(ii) He shall do so after verifying that the petitioner has complied with all the procedural requirements in accordance with law;
(iii) The writ petition is disposed off on the above terms.
Sd/- JUDGE Cs/-
Sd/- JUDGE