IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH 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. 5538 OF 2019 (GM-MM-S) BETWEEN:
RAVI H. T.
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O LATE THOPIAH VIVEKANANDA LAYOUT 3RD BLOCK, MARKET ROAD KUSHALNAGAR SOMWARPETE - 571 234 MADIKERI (BY SRI. JAYANTH V., ADV.) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT (MSME AND MINES) VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. DIRECTOR/COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN, R. C. ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001 3. SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY ... PETITIONER OFFICE OF THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST NO.4, GAGANACHUMBI JODI ROAD KUVEMPUNAGARA MYSORE - 570 023.
(BY SRI BHANU PRAKASH V. G., AGA) ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 16.9.2016 (ALSO MENTIONED AS 17.9.16) ISSUED BY R-3 (I.E., ANNEXURE-A) AS BEING VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 AND 19(1)(g) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, P. S. DINESH KUMAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard.
2. Petitioner, in this writ petition, is challenging the endorsement dated 16.09.2016 rejecting his application filed on 15.06.2016 for quarrying building stone in Sy.No.448 in Hasuvina Kavalu Village of Piriyapatna Taluk.
3. Sri Jayanth V., learned advocate for the petitioner submits that once the application was filed, respondents ought to have obtained all necessary ‘no objection certificates’ and processed the application. It is submitted that as on date, quarrying lease has not been granted.
4. It is not in dispute that the application was filed on 15.06.2016 and with effect from 12.08.2016, all the pending applications stood rejected by virtue of Rule 8(1)(b) of the Karnataka Minor Minerals Concession(Amendment Rules, 2016, except such applications in respect of which ‘no objections’ were received before commencement of the Rules. No material is placed before this Court to show that the said clearances were received.
5. Further, petitioner has presented this petition on 30.01.2019, after a lapse of more than 2 years from the date of rejection of his application. No satisfactory explanation is forthcoming for delay in approaching this Court.
6. In the circumstances, we find no good ground to entertain this writ petition. Resultantly, this writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE VP