IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.50389 OF 2019 (GM-MM-S) (F.R.NO.49982/2019) BETWEEN:
SRI LAKSHMIVENKATESHWARA KALLU KUTIKARA SANGHA, RGD.
MELINA KURUVALLI KURULLVALLI POST THIRTHAHALLI SHIVAMOGGA – 577 432 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI. K.M.NAGENDRA (BY SMT.N.SHARADA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY SOUTH ZONE NO.167, 11TH MAIN SARASWATHIPURAM MYSORE – 09 2. SENIOR GEOLOGIST (MA) DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY MINERAL DIVSIION DC OFFICE COMPLEX 2ND FLOOR, BALARAJURS ROAD SHIVAMOGGA – 577 201 ... PETITIONER 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA SUB-DIVISION SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 201 ... RESPONDENTS *** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ISSUE LICENCE TO THE PETITIONER AFTER COLLECTING THE LICENCE FEE AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. On 8th December 1999 and 30th October 2007, the applications were made for grant of the quarrying licence/lease. The applications were made not by the petitioner but by one Smt.Bangaramma who is presently the Vice President of the petitioner – Society. After 30th October 2007, no steps were taken either by the petitioner or by the person who applied for grant of the quarrying lease. After a lapse of nearly twelve years, on 1st August 2019, a representation was made on the basis of the earlier applications. The present petition seeking a writ of mandamus is filed on 14th October 2019 praying for a direction to the respondents to grant quarrying licence/lease.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the applications were made for the benefit of the members of the petitioner – Society. Her submission is that the delay will not come in the way.
4. We have considered the submissions. Firstly, the applications for grant of licence/lease were not made by the petitioner but, were made by an individual before registration of the petitioner – Society. As the applications were not made by the petitioner, no writ of mandamus can be claimed by the petitioner.
5. Assuming that the said applications were made on behalf of the petitioner, the person who applied had no authority to apply on behalf of the society which was registered as late as on 12th February 2019. This apart, the petition suffers from gross delay. We, therefore, decline to entertain this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is rejected.
6. We, however, clarify that this order will not prevent the petitioner for making a fresh application for the same relief before the competent authority if permissible in accordance with law.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE AHB