IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 34119 OF 2017 (GM-MM-S) BETWEEN SMT FATHIMA MARY W/O LATE P JOSEPH 2ND FLOOR, CANARA BANK BUILDING BEGUR BRANCH BOMMANAHALLI BEGUR MAIN ROAD BENGALURU 560058.
(BY SRI SHIVA KUMAR K B, ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE, VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU 560001 2. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU 560001 3. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST (M) DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY ROOM NO.S.A-10, 2ND FLOOR ZILLADALITHA BHAVANA, PATRENAHALLI CHIKKABALLAPURA 562101 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT CHIKKABALLAPURA 562101 5. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT CHIKKABALLAPURA 562101 6. THE DISTRICT TASK FORCE (MINES) COMMITTEE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPURA 562101.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V.G.BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R-3 & R-6 TO GRANT THE QUARRYING LEASE SUBJECT TO SUCH OTHER CONDITIONS AS MAY BE SPECIFIED AS ENVISAGED UNDER SUB-RULE (7) OF RULE 8 OF THE KARNATAKA MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES (AMENDMENT) RULES 2016 WITH REFERENCE TO ANNEX-A DATED 19.9.2005, AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Issue notice to the respondents.
2. Mr.V.G.Bhanuprakash, learned additional government advocate, accepts notice for all the respondents.
3. The writ petitioner is aggrieved, as the application dated September 19, 2005 for grant of quarrying lease was not considered by the authorities, on the presumption that the revenue and the forest clearances were not given before the cut-off date mentioned in the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2016, and therefore, the petitioner was ineligible.
4. It is the responsibility of the authorities to forward the forest and the revenue clearances. The said clearances came late because of delay and laches on the part of the authorities. The writ petitioner cannot suffer for the delay on the part of the authorities.
5. Therefore, we direct the authorities to consider the application of the petitioner dated September 19, 2005, for grant of quarrying lease, considering the forest and the revenue clearances, already, received by them, within six weeks from the date of communication of this order.
6. The writ petition stands disposed of.
7. We make no order as to costs.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE vgh*