IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 PRESENT HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.27793/2018 (GM-MM-S) BETWEEN:
SRI. S.GOPAL S/O SUBBARAJU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS PARTNER RAUNAQ CONSTRUCTIONS ASHA HOUSE, 4/269 PATEL NAGAR, HOSPET -POST-583201.
... PETITIONER (BY SMT. ANUPARNA BORDOLOI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN BENGALURU-560 001.
2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.
3. SENIOR GEOLOGIST (MINERALS AND GROUND WATER) DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KOPPAL-583221 KARNATAKA STATE.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V.G. BHANU PRAKASH, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R-3 TO ISSUE MINERAL DISPATCH PERMITS TO CARRY ON QUARRY LEASE IN TERMS OF IN QL.NO.KPL.322/2011 DATED 19.11.2011 WITH REGARD TO AREA OF 2 ACRES IN SY.NO.4, HUSSAINPURA VILLAGE, KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL FOR BUILDING STONE (ANNEXURE-C) THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Though the matter is listed for preliminary hearing, with consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus to the third respondent to issue Mineral Dispatch Permit (MDP) to carry on quarry lease in terms of the quarry licence dated 19.11.2011, while also questioning the communication dated 17.04.2018 (Annexure-B), whereby the third respondent has rejected the petitioner’s application for issuance of MDP for want of clear opinion from the Forest Department.
3. We have heard Smt.Anuparna Bardoloi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of M/s.Shetty and Hegde Associates for petitioner and Sri V.G.Bhanuprakash, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents. Perused the case papers.
4. The petitioner applied for quarry licence for extracting/quarrying building stone, which came to be granted on 19.11.2011 for a period of five years and three months prior to its expiry, renewal application came to be submitted on 10.08.2016, which was not extended and as such, petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.43559/2017 which was allowed on 21.09.2017 (Annexure-E) by directing the respondents to grant a formal document permitting the petitioner to continue with the operations in the leasehold land in terms of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2016 within two months.
5. For the direction issued by this Court having not been complied with, the petitioner submitted several representations to the third respondent and after considerable time, the second respondent sought for opinion from the Department of Forest by communication dated 10.04.2018 (Annexure-J) as to whether the lease in question would fall within the area of forest/eco-sensitive zone, wild life sanctuaries/deemed forest. However, before any opinion could be furnished by the Department of Forest, second respondent by communication dated 17.04.2018 (Annexure-B) returned the application of the petitioner and that too, without following the principles of natural justice.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the papers, we notice that the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority – Karnataka, by communication dated 31.08.2015 (Annexure-D), has issued the clearance insofar as petitioner’s application for renewal of quarrying licence relating to the subject property. Taking into consideration these aspects, the co-ordinate Bench by order dated 21.09.2017 passed in W.P.No.43359/2017 had allowed the writ petition and has issued a direction to extend the quarry lease QL No.KPL 322/2011 dated 19.11.2011 pursuant to the renewal application dated 10.08.2016 submitted by the petitioner, which order has not been complied by the respondents on the premise that the opinion of the Forest Department is awaited.
7. In the light of order passed by this Court on 21.09.2017 arriving at a conclusion that under the amended provision, petitioner is entitled for extension of lease period of twenty (20) years, we are of the considered view that petitioner is entitled for the consequential relief of issuance of MDP also.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned communication dated 17.04.2018 (Annexure-B) is set aside; and the third respondent is directed to issue Mineral Dispatch Permit in terms of QL No.KPL 322/2011 dated 19.11.2011 to an area of 2 acres in Sy.No.4 of Hussainpura village, Koppal District, Koppal, for quarrying building stones expeditiously and, at any rate, within two weeks from today, subject to compliance of other statutory requirements, if any, by the petitioner.
SD/- CHIEF JUSTICE SD/- JUDGE sp