IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.7946 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
MUTHUSAMY S.
S/O. SENGADAGOUNDER M/S. SRINIVASA BOREWELLS AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O. NO.87, 1ST FLOOR OPP. TO 43 BUS STAND KATHARIGUPPE MAIN ROAD VIVEKANANDA NAGAR B.S.K. 2ND STAGE BANGALORE-560 085. ... PETITIONER (BY SMT. SPOORTHY HEGDE NAGARAJA, 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 Y.D. HARSHA, A.G.A.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-P FORM-7B (RULE-8) DATED: 10.05.2016 ISSUED BY THE R2 BY DECLARING THE SAME IS ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Learned Additional Government Advocate to accept notice for respondents and file memo of appearance in four weeks.
2. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 10.05.2016 at Annexure-P to the petition.
3. The petitioner, who is the owner of a bore wells rig bearing registration Nos.KA-51-MA-4757 and KA-09-A3216 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 10.05.2016 as at Annexure-P to the petition.
4. Having taken note of the contention, a perusal of the order dated 10.05.2016 would disclose that, when the petitioner had made an application for registration, 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 10.05.2016 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 10.05.2016 (Annexure-P) is 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 10.05.2016 as a bar to consider the application. The orders one way or the other in accordance with law shall be passed within six weeks from the date on which a copy of this order is furnished.
The petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ST