IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. ABHAY S OKA CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S R.KRISHNA KUMAR
W.P. NO. 49880 OF 2019 (GM-MM-S)
BETWEEN:
SRI.D. SHANKAR S/O K.DAMODAR, R/AT NO.942, 2ND A CROSS, 1ST BLOCK, 3RD STAGE, BASAVESHWAR NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 079.
...PETITIONER (BY SHRI A V AMARNATHAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDI, ANGALORE-560 001.
(REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY) 2 . SENIOR GEOLOGIST (MINERAL) DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BANGALORE-560 001.
3 . DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST BANNERUGATTA NATIONAL PARK, BANGALORE-560 083.
4 . DIRECTOR MINI AND GEOLOGICAL DEPARTMENT, KANIJA BHAVAN, BANGALORE-560 001.
RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI V.G.BHANUPRAKASH, AGA, FOR R-1 TO R-4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22.8.2019 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-N, AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the State Government on 22nd August, 2019 by which the State Government suspended the stone quarrying licence granted to the petitioner.
3. The stone quarrying licence granted to the petitioner is valid till 15th March, 2023. On 26th March, 2018, a direction was issued by the third respondent (Deputy Conservator of Forests) to the fourth respondent to take steps for cancellation of the licence granted to the petitioner. On 27th June, 2019, an order was made by the second respondent directing suspension of the licence granted. The petitioner, therefore, filed a writ petition in this Court and the impugned order was passed during the pendency of the earlier petition. Therefore, a fresh petition has been filed.
4. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that there could not have been an order of suspension of the licence granted to the petitioner on the basis of the grounds set out in the impugned order. He pointed out that the impugned order is contrary to the procedure laid down by the Apex Court. He submitted that there is no power vesting in the State to pass an order of suspension on the grounds which are mentioned in the impugned order.
5. The learned Additional Government Advocate invited our attention to sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-K of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short, “the said Rules of 1994”). He submitted that sub-rule (2) gives power to pass an order suspending the quarrying operations. He pointed out that though in the relevant part of the impugned order, there may not be a ground taken that the quarrying operations are not carried out in accordance with the quarrying plan, the said ground exists. He submitted that if there is a proposal to cancel the licence granted, there is always the power to suspend the licence granted.
6. We have considered the submissions.
7. Rule 8K of the said Rules of 1994 reads thus:
“8-K. Quarrying operations to be in accordance with quarrying plan/simplified quarrying plan.-
(1) Every holder of a lease/licence/working permission/s and tender shall carry out quarrying operations in accordance with the approved quarrying plan/simplified quarrying plan with such conditions as may have been imposed under sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-G or with such modifications, if any, as approved under sub-rule (3) of Rule 8-G or in accordance with the quarrying plan/simplified quarrying plan or the scheme of quarrying submitted or approved under Rule 8-C or 8-I or 8-J, as the case may be.
(2) If the quarrying operations are not carried out in accordance with the quarrying plan/simplified quarrying plan as referred to under sub-rule (1), Deputy Director/Senior Geologist concerned may pass an order for suspension of all or any of the quarrying operations and permit continuance of only such operations as may be necessary to restore the conditions in the quarry as envisaged under the said quarrying plan/simplified quarrying plan.”
8. In a legislation which provides for grant of licence, if there is a power to cancel the licence, it is possible to argue that in the absence of a specific power to suspend the licence, such a course could be adopted by the authorities pending the decision on a show-cause notice issued to show cause why the licence should not be cancelled. But in the said Rules of 1994, there is a specific provision which empowers the authorities to suspend the quarrying operations on the basis of specified grounds provided therein. The said grounds are provided in sub-rule (2) of Rule 8K of the said Rules.
9. When there is a specific power to pass an order of suspension in the said Rules of 1994, the power has to be exercised in accordance with the concerned rule and in no other manner. As provided in sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-K, the Deputy Director or Senior Geologist gets jurisdiction to pass an order of suspension of the quarrying operations if it is found that it is not being carried in accordance with the quarrying plan/simplified quarrying plan referred in sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-K of the Rules. Sub-rule (2) provides for the exercise of the power to suspend quarrying operations if the quarrying operations are not carried out as per the quarrying plan referred in sub-rule (1).
10. Coming to the impugned order, there are reasons recorded in the operative portion of the order dated 22nd August, 2019. But there is no reason recorded that the petitioner has not carried out quarrying operations in accordance with the quarrying plan/simplified quarrying plan as per sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-K of the said Rules. It is well settled that if law provides that a particular thing has to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner only and in no other manner. As the power to suspend the quarrying operations is confined to the grounds set out in sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-K of the said Rules of 1994, in the absence of a specific ground taken on the basis of material that the petitioner has not carried out quarrying operations in accordance with the quarrying plan/simplified quarrying plan, the action of suspension of the licence granted to the petitioner cannot be sustained.
11. In the circumstances, the impugned order will have to be set aside. We must, however, clarify that we have not examined the issue whether the petitioner has committed any breaches. The impugned order is being set aside only on the ground that in the impugned order, there is no clear finding that the petitioner has not carried out quarrying operations in accordance with the quarrying plan/simplified quarrying plan. Notwithstanding the setting aside of the impugned order, it will be always open for the respondents to initiate action against the petitioner in accordance with law including an action under sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-K of the said Rules of 1994.
12. Accordingly, we pass the following order:
ORDER Subject to what is observed above, the impugned order dated 22nd August, 2019 of suspending the stone quarrying licence granted to the petitioner bearing No.494, is hereby set aside. The writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE vgh*