IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO. 9093 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
M/s.Sri Krishna Mukyaprana Enterprises By its Managing Partner (Ice Plant & Cold Storage) Bunder Malpe, Udupi District Udupi-576 108 … Petitioner (By Sri.Puthige R Ramesh, Adv.) AND:
1. State of Karnataka By its Principal Secretary Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department Vikasa Soudha Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Road Bangalore-560 001 2. Director of Fisheries 3rd Floor, Podium Block Vishweshwaraiah Centre Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Road Bangalore-560 001 3. Deputy Director of Fisheries Malpe, Udupi District Udupi-576 108 4. Sr. Assistant Director of Fisheries Radha Complex, 2nd Floor Ajjarakadu, Udupi-576 101 5. Regional Director Office of the Regional Director (Environment) APMC Building, Adi Udupi Udupi-576 103 6. Government of India By its Secretary Ministry of Environment and Forest Paryavarana Bhavan CGO Complex Lodi Road, New Delhi-110 001 7. The Member Secretary Karnataka Coastal Zone Management Authority Dept. of Forest, Ecology and Environment Secretariat 7th Floor, 4th Gate, M.S.Building Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi Bangalore-560 001 … Respondents (By Sri.Y.D.Harsha, Additional Government Advocate for R1 to R4, By Sri C Shashikantha, Assistant Solicitor General for R.6 & 7) - - -
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the communication dated:24.07.2018 of the R-3 at Annexure-A and etc.
This petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri. Puthige R Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Y D Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri C Shashikantha, Assistant Solicitor General for R.6 and 7.
2. Taking into account the order which this Court proposes to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to respondent No.5.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and the petitioner on the question of admission. With the consent of the parties, same is heard finally.
4. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner interalia seeks a Writ of Certiorari for quashing the communication dated 24.07.2018 and 17.12.2018. The petitioner also seeks a Writ of Mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to take action on the representation dated 24.08.2018 submitted by the petitioner.
5. The facts giving rise to the filing of the Writ Petition briefly stated are:
- that the petitioner is a partnership firm and was granted leasehold rights in respect of land at Malpe in Udupi District for establishment of cold storage and ice plant. It is the case of the petitioner that the plant could not be established for various reasons including the absence of letter of approval from the Karnataka Coastal Zone Management Authority – Respondent no.7. The respondent cancelled the lease on the ground that the petitioner has not established the plant in time.
Petitioner on coming to know of the order of cancellation, submitted a detailed representation explaining the circumstances on account of which the petitioner could not establish the plant including absence of approval letter from respondent No.7 for establishing such a plant and expressed its willingness to proceed with the construction as the Rules of the Respondent No.7 having been liberalized.
6. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent Nos.2 and 3 be directed to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner by passing a speaking order within a fixed time limit.
7. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submits a direction be issued that suitable action in accordance with law shall be taken.
8. In view of the submissions made and in the facts of the case, Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner by a speaking order within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed by this Court today. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Till the disposal of the representation of the petitioner, no third party right in respect of the plots in question shall be created by the respondents.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Brn