IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST 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.28148 OF 2019 (GM-MM-S) BETWEEN:
M/S.ROBO SILICON LTD., REP. BY SENIOR MANAGER (LEGAL) OFFICE AT BANJARA HILL ROAD NO.10, DURGA TOWERS, 4TH FLOOR HYDERABAD-500 034 ALSO AT:
M/S.ROBO SILICON LTD., NAKSHATRA COMPLEX 2ND FLOOR, RANA ROAD PAMPA EXTENSION KEMPAPURA, HEBBAL BANGALORE-560 024 ... PETITIONER (BY SHRI K.N.PHANEENDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SHRI S.RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR MINES AND GEOLOGY FIRST FLOOR, JUGAL TOWERS MALLIKATTA, MANGALORE D.K.DISTRICT-575 001 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANGALORE D.K.DISTRICT-575 001 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP) ---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION DATED 01.01.2019 (ANNEXURE-A) FILED FOR RENEWAL FOR STONE CRUSHER AND ALSO THE APPLICATION DATED 14.06.2019 (ANNEXURE-B) FOR RENEWAL OF C-FORM AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents on 19th August 2019.
2. The factual controversy is very brief. The petitioner was granted a licence in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 (for short ‘the said Act of 2011’). The licence was granted on 19th March 2015 for a period of five years in terms of Section 5 of the said Act of 2011. The licence was valid upto to 31st March 2019. On 1st January 2019, the petitioner applied for the renewal of licence. On 28th March 2019, the second respondent cancelled the mining licence granted to the petitioner. By the order dated 25th April 2019 passed in the writ petition filed by the petitioner, the said order was set aside. On 24th May 2019, the second respondent proceeded to cancel the licence granted to the petitioner. The prayer in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the second and third respondents to consider the application filed for renewal of licence under the said Act of 2011. The prayer is for renewal of licence in terms of the application dated 1st January 2019 (Annexure-A) and C- Form for renewal dated 14th June 2019 (Annexure-B).
3. The objection of the learned High Court Government Pleader is that the application for renewal was not made three months before the expiry of the licence in accordance with sub- section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act of 2011. His submission is that the date of expiry of licence will have to be treated as 31st March 2019 and therefore, the application ought to have been made before 31st December 2018.
4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has made submission which are of two folds. The first submission is based on Section 9 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899 (for short ‘the said Act of 1899’) which is pari materia with corresponding provision in the General Clauses Act, 1897. The second submission is that the said Act of 2011 does not provide for consequences of not making an application within three months before the expiry of the licence. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel is that there is no prohibition on entertaining the application even if it is not made three months before the expiry of licence.
5. We have given careful consideration to the submissions.
6. Firstly, we deal with the second submission. Sub- section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act of 2011 reads thus:
“4. Application for licence.─(1) Every application for grant or renewal of licence to carry on the business of stone crushing under this Act shall be made to the Licensing Authority in such form, in such manner, accompanied by such documents and such fees as may be prescribed. An application for renewal of licence shall be made to the Licensing Authority three months before the expiry of the licence.”
(underlining supplied) Section 5 of the said Act of 2011 is also relevant which provides that a licence shall be valid for a period of five years and may be renewed for a further period of five years subject to fulfillment of the conditions laid down under the said Act of 2011 or the Rules made thereunder. Sub-section (1) of Section 4 enables an application for renewal of licence to be made. The Apex Court has consistently held that if a statute requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, the same shall be done only in that manner and in no other manner. The requirement of the statute is that the application for renewal of licence has to be made three months before the expiry of licence. It can be made earlier also but not later. There is no provision in the said Act of 2011 which provides for condonation of delay in the event the application is not made three months in advance. As sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act of 2011 lays down a timeline for making an application for renewal, the authority which is competent to consider the prayer for renewal gets jurisdiction or power to consider the application provided it is made in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act of 2011 and within the time stipulated therein. The fact that the consequences for not making application within the time fixed under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act of 2011 are not prescribed is completely irrelevant. If the applicant wants the renewal of licence, the applicant must abide by the timeline provided in sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act of 2011. If he cannot abide by the said timeline, he can always apply for grant of a fresh licence.
7. There may be a valid reason for the legislature to provide that an application for renewal of licence shall be made three months before the expiry of licence. The renewal of the licence has to be effective from the date immediately after the date on which the licence expires. A reasonable time of atleast three months is required to process an application and to ensure that all the conditions laid down under the said Act of 2011 and Rules framed thereunder are complied with by the licence holder who applies for renewal. Therefore, the second submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner does not appeal to us and the same cannot be accepted.
8. As far as the first submission is concerned, going by sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act of 2011, the period of three months has to be reckoned in backward direction from the date of expiry of the licence. There was one argument canvassed that the date of expiry of the licence will have to be treated as 1st April 2019 inasmuch as till the mid night of 31st March 2019, it cannot be said that the licence has expired. The said argument does not appeal to us for the simple reason that the date of expiry of licence will have to be the last day of the subsistence of the licence. Therefore, the said date in the facts of the case will have to be necessarily 31st March 2019. Thus, the period of three months has to be calculated in backward direction from 31st March 2019. In this context, the provisions of Section 9 of the said Act of 1899 are very relevant. Section 9 of the said Act of 1899 reads thus:
“9. Commencement and termination of time.─(1) In any Mysore Act or Karnataka Act made after the commencement of this Act, it shall be sufficient, for the purpose of excluding the first in a series of days or any other period of time, to use the word “from”, and, for the purpose of including the last in a series of days or any other period of time, to use the word “to”.
(2) This section applies also to all enactments made after the Third day of January, 1868.”
9. The provision of Section 9 of the said Act of 1899 does refer to the word ‘from’ and the word ‘to’. On plain reading of sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the said Act of 1899, to make the provision applicable, it is not necessary that the statute must use the word “from” and the word “to”. Sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the said Act of 1899 has been incorporated for the purpose of excluding the first in a series of days and for the purpose of including the last in a series of days. The word “from” will have to be read into last part of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act, 2011. For computing the period of three months, the starting point is the date of expiry of licence and it is from the said date in the backward direction that the period of three months will have to be counted. Hence, in view of Section 9(1) of the said Act of 1899, benefit will have to be given to the applicant by excluding 31st March 2019 and therefore, the computation of period of three months will have to be made from 1st April 2019 and the period of three months will expire on 2nd January 2019. Hence, the application filed on 1st January 2019 will have to be held as filed within the time frame provided in sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act of 2011.
10. Hence, the argument that the application for renewal was not made within the stipulated period as provided under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act of 2011, cannot be accepted.
11. Therefore, the Licensing Authority will have to proceed on the footing that the application made by the petitioner was within the prescribed period as provided under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act of 2011. Accordingly, we dispose of the petition by passing the following order:
(i) We direct the Licensing Authority to decide the application for renewal made by the petitioner on 1st January 2019 and to pass appropriate order on application for renewal in C-Form as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of two months from today;
(ii) The petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE LB