1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 PRESENT HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.39552/2018 (GM-MMS) BETWEEN:
SRI.P.VENUGOPAL @ P.MANI S/O.K.PERUMAL, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/O.VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, NEAR INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, P.MANI COMPOUND, BELGUMBA POST, KASABA HOBLI, TUMKURU TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT-572104.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI.SATISH M. DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES & 2 GEOLOGY, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 3. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY & CHAIRMAN, RULE 11 COMMITTEE, CONSTITUED UNDER KARNATAKA MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES 1994 VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIKRAM HULIGOL, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.08.2018 PASSED BY THE THIRD RE.. AND SIGNED BY SECTION OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE (MINES) VIDE ANNEXURE-j IN REJECTING THE APP.. OF THE PET.. FOR GRANT OF QL, IN RESPECT OF SY.NO.4 (OLD), NEW SY.NO.137, IN RESPECT OF 3 ACRES 32 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT THIMMANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, URDIGERE HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
Though matter is listed for preliminary hearing, with the consent of learned counsel for parties, it is taken up for final disposal at this stage itself.
2. Facts in brief which has led to the filing of present writ petition could be crystalised as under:
3 Petitioner submitted an application on 20.11.2011 (Annexure-A) to second respondent for grant of quarry license i.e., to carryout mining/quarrying in pink granite in 3 acre 32 guntas of land in Sy.No.4 at Thimmanayakanahalli, Urdigere Village, Tumkur District. The report dated 20.10.2012 (Annexure-B) from the Deputy Director received by second respondent indicate that land sought for by the petitioner for quarrying does not contain any ornamental stone. The jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner forwarded a report dated 12.12.2012 to the second respondent certifying that land in question was not gomal land and not fit for agricultural operations and that there were no dwelling units.
3. On account of non-consideration of his application for grant of license by respondent-authorities, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.2667/2017 and this Court, by the order dated 07.02.2017 (Annexure-G) disposed of the writ petition whereunder the Chairman of Rule 11 Committee constituted under the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, was directed to convene a meeting 4 of the Committee to consider the application of petitioner for grant of license to quarry pink granite.
4. It is the grievance of petitioner that though such direction was issued by this Court, no action was taken to consider the application within three (3) months as ordered and only after contempt proceedings in CCC No.313/2018 were initiated, the respondents hurriedly convened the meeting and notice dated 08.08.2018 (Annexure-H) was issued to petitioner to appear before the respondents on 10.08.2018. It is also contended by the petitioner that despite bringing to the notice that the land applied for by him is Sy.No.4; that the alleged bifurcation of land as Sy.No.137 is not shown in the village map; and that jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner as well as Forest Department had also opined that Sy.No.4 was free for grant, the authorities yet rejected the application by the order dated 14.08.2018 (Annexure-J) on the ground that certification by the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur as well as NOC given by the Forest Department were pertaining to Sy.No.4 of Thimmanayakanahalli Village and not in respect of Sy.No.137. Hence, it is contended that order dated 14.08.2018 is liable to be quashed.
5 5. We have heard the arguments of Sri.Satish M.Doddamani, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.Vikram Huligol, learned HCGP appearing for State. Perused the records.
6. It is clear and explicit that petitioner has applied for grant of quarry license for mining/quarrying in pink granite in the land bearing Sy.No.4 measuring 3 acres 32 guntas situated at Thimmanayakanahalli Village. The inspection report dated 20.10.2012 (Annexure-B) forwarded by the Deputy Director, Mines and Geology, Tumkur, to the second respondent would also disclose that the area applied for is Sy.No.4. So also the report of Assistant Conservator of Forest dated 12.11.2014 (Annexure-C) would indicate that the land sought for quarrying by the petitioner namely, Sy.No.4 measuring 3 acres 32 guntas, has been verified from the records/maps available in its office and after conducting survey through GPS (Global Positioning System), it is certified to be a non forest area and being not situated within 100 mtrs 6 of any notified forest. The village map (Annexure-F) would also indicate the existence of Sy.No.4.
7. However, under the impugned order dated 14.08.2018 (Annexure-J), the application of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the area applied for is situated in Sy.No.137.
8. In comprehension of the material placed on record, we are unable to approve the impugned order dated 14.08.2018 (Annexure-J) for a variety of reasons. In the first place, it appears that the impugned order came to be passed after issuing notice to the petitioner dated 08.08.2018 for appearance on 10.08.2018 but without granting him adequate opportunity to produce the latest village map and without examining the relevant revenue record. When it is the specific case of petitioner that Sy.No.4 and Sy.No.137 of Thimmanayakanahalli Village are one and the same and both revenue and forest department have expressed opinion in respect of Sy.No.4, which is subsequently renumbered as Sy.No.137, third respondent ought to have sought for clarification from the said authorities instead of arriving at a conclusion that they are separate and distinct and thereby 7 rejecting the application of the petitioner. Even if there was some inconsistency about the revenue record, the third respondent appears not to have examined the fact if there had been any alteration in topography of the area applied for by the petitioner.
9. Hence, we are of the considered view that the impugned order dated 14.08.2018 (Annexure-J) cannot be sustained and the matter requires reconsideration by the third respondent.
10. Accordingly, and in view of the above, this petition is allowed in the manner that the impugned order dated 14.08.2018 (Annexure-J) is set aside and the application of the petitioner is restored for reconsideration. It shall be required of the third respondent to reconsider the application of the petitioner after extending him an opportunity to substantiate his case and thereafter, to decide the matter with speaking order, while keeping in view the reports of the Deputy Commissioner, Tumakuru, as well as the reports of the Forest Department and such other documents as the petitioner may submit. It would be expected of the said respondent to take a final decision on the application 8 expeditiously, preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
SD/- CHIEF JUSTICE SD/- JUDGE sp