IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.H.G.RAMESH ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.25438/2017 (GM-MM-S) BETWEEN:
G.SADIK BASHA S/O JALALUDDIN AGED 47 YEARS #4/15, PWD COLONY NEAR GOVT. GIRLS HOSTEL CHAMARAJ NAGAR-571 313 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI R.G.KOLLE, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001 3. THE DIRECTOR & COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 4. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY & CHAIRMAN, RULE 11 COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED UNDER KMMC RULES 1994, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001 5. THE CHAIRMAN & DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT TASK FORCE (MINES) COMMITTEE DC OFF COMPOUND, CHAMARAJ NAGAR DISTRICT CHAMARAJ NAGAR DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R-5 TO COMMUNICATE TO THE R-3 TO IMMEDIATELY PROCESS THE QUARRYING LEASE APPLICATION DTD.25.6.2007 VIDE ANNEX-B AND FORTHWITH GRANT CONDITIONAL QUARRYING LEASE TO EXTRACT BLACK GRANITE IN GOVT. LAND BEARING SY.NO.445 OF AMACHAWADI VILLAGE, IN CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUKA AND DISTRICT, OVER AN AREA OF 3.00 ACRES FOR A PERIOD OF 30 YEARS, IN TERMS OF NEWLY AMENDED RULE 8(6) EFFECTIVE FROM 12.8.2016 ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 24.11.2017, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R 1. This writ petition is presented, praying inter alia for a direction against the 5th respondent, Deputy Commissioner and Chairman of District Task Force (Mines) Committee for necessary action to process petitioner’s application dated 25.06.2007 produced as Annexure–B to the writ petition;
and to grant a conditional quarrying lease to extract black granite.
2. We have heard Shri R.G.Kolle, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vikram Huilgol, learned HCGP for the respondents.
3. Arguing in support of this petition, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that, petitioner’s application dated 25.06.2007, for grant of quarrying lease to extract black granite has not been considered as on date. He further contended that the endorsement dated 17.02.2017 (Annexure-A), issued in response to petitioner’s representation dated 30.12.2016 is unsustainable because the respondents have failed in their statutory duty to consider the genuine request of the petitioner.
4. Refuting the argument of petitioner’s advocate, Shri Vikram Huilgol, learned HCGP, submitted that, petitioner’s application dated 25.06.2007 was rejected as early as on 22.04.2010 for the reasons recorded by the District Task Force (Mines) Committee. Without challenging the same, the petitioner, after a long lapse of time submitted another representation dated 30.12.2016. Thus, in substance, the petitioner made an attempt to revive his application dated 25.06.2007, which had stood rejected in the year 2010. Therefore, the instant petition does not merit any consideration. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of this writ petition.
5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
6. Admittedly, this writ petition is filed in the year 2017.
Perusal of the impugned endorsement, Annexure – A, clearly indicates that the petitioner, initially submitted an application in the year 2007 and the same stood rejected in the year 2010.
7. Shri Huilgol, is right in his submission, that the petitioner has made a clever attempt to give life to his earlier application, which had once stood rejected, by submitting a representation dated 30.12.2016. Incidentally, it is also significant to note that, reckoned from the date of rejection of petitioner’s initial application, there is a delay of 7 years.
8. In view of the above, we see no merit to consider this writ petition by exercising the extra-ordinary powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9. Resultantly, this petition must fail and is accordingly dismissed.
Petition dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE cp*