IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA WRIT PETITION NO.18754/2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
C. THANGAVEL, S/O.CHINNASAMY, MANJUNATHA ROCK DRILLS, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O.NO.812, OLD NO.445/42, GOLLAHALLI, TULASIPURA MAIN ROAD, MUHESWARA LAYOUT, ANJANAPURA POST, BANGALORE-560 062. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. KARNATAKA GROUND WATER AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN, DEVARAJ URS ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI KIRAN KUMAR T.L., AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-L DATED 17.02.2017 AND ANNEXURE-M DATED 27.07.2013 ISSUED BY THE R-2 BY DECLARING THE SAME IS ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Learned Government Advocate to accept notice for respondents and file memo of appearance in four weeks.
2. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the orders dated 17.02.2017 and 27.07.2013 at Annexures-L and M to the petition.
3. The petitioner, who is the owner of a bore well rig bearing registration No.KA-01-ME-2040 has made the application seeking registration as provided under the Karnataka Ground Water (Regulation and Control of Development and Management) Rules, 2012. The request as made by the petitioner has been rejected through the communication dated 17.02.2017 as at Annexure-L to the petition. The reason as assigned therein is that the application which had been made by the petitioner for a similar registration earlier has been rejected through the order dated 27.07.2013 and in that view, the consideration once over again would not arise. The petitioner, therefore claiming to be aggrieved is before this Court in this petition.
4. Having taken note of the contention, a perusal of the order dated 27.07.2013 (Annexure-M) would disclose that, when the petitioner had made an application for registration at an earlier point, since the documents were required to be produced, a communication had been issued to the petitioner. However, since, the same had not been delivered and no effort had been made by the petitioner to produce the documents, the competent authority had rejected the application. The reason as assigned therein would disclose that the application was not rejected on merits, but was for default on the part of the petitioner in appearing and producing the necessary documents.
5. If that be the position, the rejection order dated 27.07.2013 would not act as a bar for consideration of the application, if the necessary documents are submitted by the petitioner. The petition averments would disclose that the petitioner possesses the necessary documents and the same would be produced before the respondents.
6. To enable such consideration, the order dated 27.07.2013 (Annexure-M) and the communication dated 17.02.2017 (Annexure-L) are quashed. Liberty is however reserved to the petitioner to file the necessary documents with respondent No.2 along with a representation and a copy of this order. If the necessary documents are filed by the petitioner, the respondent No.2 shall consider the application filed by the petitioner for registration in accordance with law and appropriate orders be passed without treating the order dated 27.07.2013 and the communication dated 17.02.2017 as a bar to consider the application. The orders one way or the other in accordance with law shall be passed within four weeks from the date on which a copy of this order is furnished.
The petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ST