IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOs.49992-93 OF 2013 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. TIRUCHENGODE RIG OWNERS ASSOCIATION T.R.U.S. BUILDING SANKARI ROAD, TIRUCHENGODE-637 211 NAMAKKAL DISTRICT TAMIL NADU REP. BY ITS SECRETARY SRI.S.PALANIVELU 2. KARNATAKA BORE-WELL RIG CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION NO.168, 1ST MAIN ROAD VIDYARANYA NAGARA NEAR OLD TOLE GATE BUS STOP MAGADI MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-560 023 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY SRI.R.KRISHNAMURTHY … PETITIONERS (BY SRI.NAIK.N.R., ADV.- ABSENT) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE SECRETARY PARLIAMENT AFFAIRS & LAW DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001 3. THE SECRETARY MINES & GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001 4. THE MEMBER SECRETARY & DIRECTOR KARNATAKA UNDERGROUND AUTHORITY MINES & GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.Y.D.HARSHA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) - - -
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE PROVISION OF SECTIONS 10, 11, 12 AND 13 RELATING TO NOTIFIED AREA, PERMIT AND REGISTRATION FOR DIG AND DRILL THE BOREWELLS AND REGISTRATION OF DRILLING AGENCIES UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND IT IS NOT USEFUL FOR PETITIONERS AS WELL AS PUBLIC AT LARGE, WHICH IS INTRODUCED IN ENACTMENT OF KARNATAKA ACT NO.25 OF 2011 WHICH IS CALLED AS ‘THE KARNATAKA GROUND WATER (REGULATION AND CONTROL OF DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT) ACT 2011’ PUBLISHED IN KARNATAKA GAZETTE DATED 07.04.2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER None for the petitioners. Sri.Y D Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents.
2. When the matters was taken up on 13.03.2019, none appeared for the petitioners. Thereupon, this Court had adjourned to 28.03.2019 with a clear stipulation that in case no appearance is made out, writ petitions would be dismissed. None has appeared on behalf of the petitioners even today. Therefore, this Court is left with no option but to dismiss the petitions for non- prosecution.
Accordingly, petitions are dismissed for non- prosecution.
Sd/- JUDGE brn