IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.50649 OF 2018 (GM-MM-S) BETWEEN:
M. SHIVARAJU S/O MARIMUTTU AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO.41, 1ST MAIN ROAD ATTIGUPPE, R.M.C. LAYOUT VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 072 (BY SHRI R.G.KOLLE, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHAN SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. DEPT. 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. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST & COMPETENT AUTHORITY ... PETITIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY VIDYANAGARA, 1ST CROSS MANDYA – 571 401 5. THE REVISING AUTHORITY & JOINT DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY SOUTHERN RANGE, MYSURU MYSURU – 570 001 6. SMT. SHANTHAMMA D/O LATE NARAYANA MUTTU R/AT NO.757, RANGANATHA NILAYA KATTRIGUPPE, 3RD STAGE BANASHANKARI BENGALURU – 560 085 ... RESPONDENTS (SHRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 5 SHRI RAGHAVENDRACHAR M, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.6) ---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI DIRECTING TO QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE REVISION ORDER DATED 02.08.2018 ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT AND REJECTION ORDER DATED 21.05.2018 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURES-A AND B RESPECTIVELY IN RESPECT OF QUARRY LEASE NO.747 TO EXTRACT ORDINARY BUILDING STONES OVER AN AREA OF 4-00 ACRES IN SY.NO.01 OF BEBIBETTADAKAVALU VILLAGE IN PANDAVAPURA TALUKA, MANDYA DIST AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the first to fifth respondents and the learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent.
2. Annexure-C is a quarrying lease granted to the petitioner for a period of twenty years with effect from 9th May 2005. The actual date of grant is 27th September 2017. By the first impugned order dated 21st May 2018, the quarrying lease granted to the petitioner was ordered to be cancelled. The said order has been confirmed in an revision application, by the second impugned order dated 2nd August 2018.
3. After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we find that the order dated 21st May 2018 passed by the Senior Geologist is of a drastic nature of cancelling the quarrying lease granted to the petitioner which was to be in subsistence till 8th May 2025 and that also without recording any reasons. In the preamble, there is a reference to the order passed by the Civil Court in a suit filed by the sixth respondent. No specific reason has been recorded for passing the drastic order of cancelling the lease. The revision application preferred by the petitioner has been rejected. In the impugned order, the Revisional Authority has recorded that the building stone quarry lease period has not been extended in accordance with Rule 8-A of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short ‘the said Rules of 1994’). That is the ground on which the revision application has been dismissed. However, page 32 of the writ petition (Annexure-C) indicates that prima facie, the lease period has been extended as per Rule 8-A of the said Rules of 1994.
4. Hence, the first impugned order cannot be sustained as it records no reasons for cancelling the quarrying lease granted to the petitioner. The second impugned order passed by the Revisional Authority records a factually incorrect ground. Hence, both the impugned orders cannot be sustained. However, it will be always open for the State Government to serve a show cause notice to the petitioner and take action of cancellation/termination in accordance with law.
5. Accordingly, we pass the following order:
(i) The impugned orders dated 2nd August 2018 and 21st May 2018, Annexures-A and B to the petition are hereby set aside;
(ii) This order will not preclude the first respondent from initiating fresh proceedings in accordance with law;
(iii) We also make it clear that we have made no adjudication on inter se dispute between the petitioner and the sixth respondent; and (iv) All issues are left open to be decided in an appropriate proceeding.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE AHB