IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.L.NARAYANA SWAMY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.26354 OF 2018 (GM-MM-S) BETWEEN:
P.N.PRABHAKAR RAO AGED 65 YEARS S/O LATE P.N.ANANTHAKRISHNA RAO 4B, STUROCK APARTMENTS STUROCK ROAD FALNIR, MANGALURU – 575 001 BY SRI S.K.ACHARYA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN NO.49, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU – 576 001 2. SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY 1ST FLOOR, A BLOCK RAJATHADRI MANIPAL – 576 104 UDUPI DISTRICT ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A.M.SURESH REDDY, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) ---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 17.4.2018 ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT, SENIOR GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, UDUPI VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND TO DECLARE THE SAME AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ILLEGAL AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner was granted with a mineral lease for 20 years with effect from 17.06.2003 to quarry silica sand. By endorsement dated 17.04.2018 (Annexure-‘J’), the Senior Geologist, Mines and Geology Department called upon the petitioner to submit Environmental Clearance Certificate. The said endorsement is challenged in this writ petition.
2. Shri S.K.Acharya, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the lease was granted on 17.06.2003 for 20 years. As per communication No.CI 375 NMN(1) 2014 dated 07.01.2015 from the Secretary to the Government, Commerce and Industries Department to the Director, Department of Mines and Geology, it is clarified that the existing lease holders are required to furnish the Environmental Clearance at the stage of renewal of lease along with application for renewal. The said communication is based on a notification issued by Government of India on 07.10.2014. Therefore, impugned endorsement calling upon the petitioner to submit the Environmental Clearance is unsustainable in law.
3. Shri A.M.Suresh Reddy, learned Additional Government Advocate opposing the petition submits that as on the date on which mining lease was granted to the petitioner, silica sand was a major mineral. With effect from the year 2005, the same is treated as a minor mineral. The communication issued by the State Government to the Director of Mines and Geology Department is in respect of minor mineral in respect of area which is less than 5 acres. In the case of petitioner, the area of land measures 7 hectares and as on the date of issuing of the mining lease, the mineral was considered as a major mineral. Therefore, he shall not be entitled for the benefit of the said communication. He further submits that as on the date of granting the mining lease, it was necessary for the petitioner to obtain Environmental Clearance, since the mineral was treated as major mineral.
4. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
5. It is not in dispute that petitioner was granted with mining lease to quarry silica sand for 20 years with effect from 17.06.2003. The relevant portion in the communication dated 07.01.2015 reads as follows:
“Hence, I am hereby directed to clarify that except the existing holders of working permission and sand quarrying, which are not having any renewal process, all existing holders of quarrying lease/license may be allowed to submit the Environmental clearance at the stage of renewal of lease/license for which an application shall be made up to two years prior to the date due for renewal of lease/license and no fresh Environmental clearance is required at the time of renewal of lease/license if EC is already obtained under the notification.”
(emphasis supplied) 6. The above communication clearly shows that existing lease holders are required to submit Environmental Clearance at the time of submission of their application for renewal.
7. In the circumstances, in our view, the impugned endorsement as per Annexure-J is unsustainable in law and accordingly, the same is quashed. Respondent No.2 is directed to issue work permits in accordance with law if a request is so made.
No costs.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE AHB