IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT PETITION NO.28583 OF 2019 (GM-MM-S) BETWEEN:
SMT.N.V.RUKMINI W/O.SRI LAKSHMIPRASAD AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS DANDIGANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 225 ... PETITIONER (BY SHRI JAYAKUMAR S.PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SHRI RAHAMATHULLA KOTHWAL, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES [MINES, SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIES AND TEXTILES] VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY NO.49, “KHANIJA BHAVAN”
RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN AND THE CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT STONE CRUSHER LICENSING AND REGULATION AUTHORITY HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201 4. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY MIG 73, NEAR ARAVIND SCHOOL HASSAN-573 201 AND MEMBER SECRETARY DISTRICT STONE CRUSHERS LICENSING AND REGULATION AUTHORITY HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP) ---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER/NOTICE DATED 24.04.2019 (ANNEXURE-E) ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO STOP CURSHER ACTIVITY IN 1-00 ACRE OF SY.NO.179 OF DANDIGANAHALLI, CHANNARAYAPATTANA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
2. The challenge in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to that part of the notice dated 24th April 2019 by which the petitioner was restrained from undertaking any crusher activities till further orders.
3. The petitioner is relying upon the licence for stone crusher dated 1st April 2017 (Annexure-A) which is valid upto 31st December 2021.
4. In the impugned notice, it is alleged that the petitioner has encroached upon an additional area to the extent of 1.00 acre for stocking jelly and M-sand and has indulged transportation of jelly and other materials without licence from the Government. It records that a private complaint has been registered against the petitioner.
5. After hearing the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, we are of the view that so long as the licence dated 1st April 2017 is in subsistence, the petitioner cannot be prevented from carrying on the operations in terms of the said licence. If the petitioner commits or has committed any violation of the terms and conditions on which licence is granted, the respondents can always initiate appropriate action in accordance with law.
6. During the subsistence of the licence, the petitioner cannot be prevented from carrying out activities which are permissible under the licence.
7. Accordingly, we dispose of the petition by passing the following order:
i) That part of the impugned notice dated 24th April 2019 (Annexure-E) which prevents the petitioner from carrying on operations in terms of the licence dated 1st April 2017 (Annexure-A) is hereby set aside. So long as the licence is in subsistence, the petitioner can always carry out activities which are permitted under the licence;
ii) It is obvious that if the petitioner commits any breach or has committed any breach, the respondents are free to take action in accordance with law;
iii) We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made in the impugned notice;
iv) The petition is disposed of on the above terms.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE LB