IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.48704 OF 2018 (GM-MM-S) BETWEEN:
V. ARUN AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O SRI.B.VENKATACHALAPATHY R/O BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE (GAVIMATH) CHIDARAVALLI POST SOSLE HOBLI, T.NARASIPUR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT – 570 023 (BY SHRI YASHAS K., ADVOCATE FOR VGB ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES) AND:
1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY & SSI VIKASA SOUDHA, VIDHAN VEEDHI BANGALORE – 560 001 2. THE DIRECTOR OF MINES & GEOLOGY IN KARNATAKA NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVANA D.DEVARAJA URS ROAD BANGALORE – 560 001 ... PETITIONER 3. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY NO.4, GAGANA CHUMBI JODI RASTHE, KUVEMPUNAGAR MYSORE – 570 023 (BY SHRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP) ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 13.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-P AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
2. Considering the narrow controversy involved in this petition, the same is taken up for final disposal.
3. The petitioner applied for grant of quarrying lease. By the impugned endorsement dated 13th December 2017, the application made by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the area sought for quarrying lease is situated at a distance of 140 metres from a public road.
4. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that in fact, in the application for grant of quarrying lease, the petitioner has made it clear that the mining operations undertaken by the petitioner will not involve any blasting activity. By pointing out sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short ‘the said Rules of 1994’), he submitted that if no blasting is involved, the quarrying operations can be carried out beyond the distance of 50 meters from the public structures/public roads.
5. The learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the issue whether the subject land is within the forest will have to be also considered. He submitted that even the effect of Rule 8-B of the said Rules of 1994 as amended with effect from 12th August 2016 will have to be considered.
6. A perusal of the application filed by the petitioner shows that the petitioner does not want to undertake any blasting activity. On a plain reading of sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of the said Rules of 1994, it is apparent that the embargo of 200 metres as provided therein will apply only if mining activities involve blasting. If it does not involve blasting, the requirement of distance is only 50 metres from a public road. Thus, to that extent, there is a non-application of mind by the Senior Geologist. In the impugned endorsement, it is not stated that the land is covered by a forest. However, as the endorsement of rejection is not on that ground, we need not go into that question at all.
7. The effect of sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B of the said Rules of 1994 as amended with effect from 12th August 2016 will have to be considered in the context of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B.
8. Subject to what is observed above, the impugned endorsement is hereby quashed and set aside. We direct the concerned competent authority to decide the application made by the petitioner for grant of quarrying lease in accordance with law. Appropriate decision shall be taken within a period of six weeks from today.
9. The issues of applicability of Rule 8-B of the said Rules of 1994 as amended and alleged status of the land as a forest are kept open to be decided by the concerned authority.
The writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE AHB Sd/- JUDGE