IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 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.7373 OF 2019 (GM-MM-S) BETWEEN:
M/S PANCHAMI STONE CRUSHERS SY. No.15/2 KANIVENARAYANAPURA VILLAGE NANDI HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DIST. REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI B.N. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAVEEN CHANDRA N. ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE CHAIRMAN, LICENSING AUTHORITY & DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT STONE CRUSHING & LICENSING AUTHORITY CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT CHIKKABALLAPURA 562101.
4. THE SENIOR GEIOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY CHIKKABALLAPURA 562 101.
5. THE SENIOR ENVIRONMENT OFFICER KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD NO. 49, CHURCH STREET BENGALURU- 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP FOR R.1 TO R.4 SRI D. NAGARAJ, ADV. FOR R.5) ---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R-3 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & CHAIRMAN, LICENSING AUTHORITY TO RENEW THE VALIDITY PERIOD OF LICENSE ISSUED IN FORM-C LICENSE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C, FOR A FURTHER PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS TILL 31.03.2019 PURSUANT TO A RENEWAL APPLICATION DATED 03.12.2018, IN RESPECT OF A STONE CRUSHING UNIT LOCATED IN NOTIFIED SAFER ZONE IN NON- AGRICULTURAL LAND BEARING SY.NO.15/2 OF KANIVENARAYANAPURA VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK & DISTRICT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A & B RESPECTIVELY AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Before the expiry of quarrying license period an application has been made for renewal. petitioner has approached this Court seeking direction to the 3rd respondent in the nature of mandamus to dispose of the application made for renewal of licence.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that, the licence is in operation and therefore petitioner’s application made for renewal of licence will be considered in accordance with law.
3. In the light of the submission made by the respondents’ counsel, we hold that application is premature to consider the case of the petitioner as the licence is still in operation.
4. Therefore, this petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court in case, if the respondents fail to consider petitioner’s application after the expiry of the licence period.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE HR