IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU Dated this the 20th day of September, 2017 PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE MR SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE P S DINESH KUMAR Writ Petition No.3040 of 2017 (GM-MM-S) BETWEEN:
Mr.RAM MURTHY S/O.NARAYANAPPA AGE:80 YEARS R/O.VIDYANAGAR CROSS BETTA HALASUR POST BANGALORE NORTH-560 057 ...PETITIONER AND:
(BY SHRI.D.L.N.RAO, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI.ANIRUDH ANAND, ADVOCATE) 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY (MINES) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES VIKASA SOUDHA, 1ST FLOOR BANGALORE-560 001 2. COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 3. M/s.VINAYAKA ROCKS PVT. LTD., No.48C, HOSKOTE INDUSTRIAL AREA, HOSKOTE BANGALORE RURAL-562 114 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR … RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 AND 2;
SHRI.B.V.ACHARYA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI.L.M.CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT No.3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION DTD.12.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE R-1 SANCTIONING QUARRY LEASE IN FAVOUR OF THE R-3 FOR A PERIOD OF 30 YEARS FOR EXTRACTION OF PINK GRANITE IN SY.NO.43 OF DARBUR VILLAGE OVER AN EXTENT OF 8 ACRES VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND QUASH IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DTD.6.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-G.
THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2017, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, P.S. DINESH KUMAR, J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard Mr.D.L.N.Rao, learned senior advocate, for the petitioner, Mr.V.G.Bhanuprakash, learned additional government advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2 and Mr.B.V.Acharya, learned senior advocate for the respondent No.3.
2. Brief facts of case are, petitioner submitted an application on July 25, 2005, for grant of quarrying lease for multi colour granite quarry, over an area of 8 acres, in survey No.43 of Darbur village, Chikkaballapura Taluk.
3. Petitioner obtained necessary no objections from the Forest and the Revenue Departments.
4. The Rule 11 Committee recommended for rejection of petitioner’s application in view of the bar contained in the circular issued by the Government with regard to Gomal lands. This Court, in a decision rendered on February 15, 2008, in Writ Petition No.15882 of 2007, quashed the said circular and directed the respondents to dispose of the applications for grant of quarrying lease and renewal, expeditiously.
5. Thereafter, petitioner’s application was taken up for consideration. The respondents sought further documents from the petitioner. Petitioner obtained fresh no objection from the Revenue and the Forest Departments. The Deputy Commissioner, Chikkaballapura, conveyed his opinion to the Director, Department of Mines and Geology, on July 8, 2015. However, the petitioner’s application was not considered.
6. In the meanwhile, the petitioner learnt that by a notification bearing No.CI 459 MMN 2015 dated December 12, 2016, the quarrying lease was granted in favour of the third respondent. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition praying, inter alia, to quash the aforesaid notification and to direct the respondents to grant quarrying lease in favour of the petitioner.
7. Shri D.L.N.Rao, learned senior advocate, arguing in support of the petitioner submitted that the respondents have given a preferential treatment to the third respondent on the premise that he had established a small scale industry for cutting and polishing granite and thus attempted to bring the case of the third respondent within the purview of Rule 12 (1) (3) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, (for short ‘Rules’) as the Rule stood prior to its amendment in the year 2016. He argued that this was impermissible in law, because, an application for quarrying lease has to be considered with reference to the statutory provisions in force as on the date of consideration of such application. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in case of State of Tamil Nadu v. M/s Hind Stone and others reported in (1981) 2 SCC 205.
8. Mr.B.V.Acharya, learned senior advocate, opposing the writ petition, contended that the respondents have rightly placed reliance on Rule 12(1)(3) of the Rules, inasmuch as the third respondent had, already, established a small scale industry and the State was expected to support development of small scale industries.
9. Mr.V.G.Bhanuprakash, learned additional government advocate, justified the preferential treatment given to the third respondent under Rule 12 of the Rules, as the third respondent had established a small scale industry in stone cutting and polishing.
10. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned advocates for the parties and perused the records.
11. A perusal of the impugned notification dated December 12, 2016, shows that the said notification has been issued exercising powers under the amended Rules, 2016.
12. The respondents have specifically contended in the statement of objections that the third respondent’s application was considered under Rule 12 of the Rules and same was reiterated by the learned additional government advocate.
13. Rule 12 of the Rules was omitted with effect from August 12, 2016.
14. Mr.D.L.N.Rao is right in his submission that an application for grant of quarrying lease will have to be considered in terms of the Rules in force as on the date of consideration. Therefore, the impugned notification is unsustainable in law.
15. In the result, we allow this writ petition and quash the notification dated December 12, 2016, in No.CI 459 MMN 2015 being Annexure-H to the writ petition and direct the respondents to consider petitioner’s application in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.
16. We make no order as to costs.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE Yn.