IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. L.NARAYANA SWAMY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.58264 OF 2018 (GM-MM-S) BETWEEN:
M/S. VENKATESHWARA STONE CRUSHER OFFICE AT SY NO.16/5 KANNANAYAKANA AGRAHARA MAIN ROAD, ANJANAPURA POST BENGALURU – 560 062. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI.M.NARAYANA SWAMY.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. GANAPATHI BHAT VAJRALLI, ADV.,) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VIDHI BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY VIDHANA SOUDHA DR.AMBEDKAR VIDHI BENGALURU – 560 001.
3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOREST VIDHANA SOUDHA DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VIDHI BENGALURU – 560 001 4. THE LICENSING AUTHORITY/ PRESIDENT AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT STONE CRUSHER LICENSING AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU – 560 001 5. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KANIJA BHAVAN BENGALURU – 560 001 6. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT V.V.TOWER, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VIDHI BENGALURU – 560 001 7. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST BANNERGHATTA NATIONAL PARK, BANNERGHATTA, BENGALURU – 560 083.
8. THE RANGE OFFICER ANEKAL WILDLIFE RANGE ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT – 562 106 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP) *** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE/ORDER DATED:20.07.2018 ISSUED BY THE R-6 AS PER ANNEXURE-L AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner is challenging notice dated 20.07.2018 issued by the 6th respondent – Senior Geologist, Department of Mines and Geology, as per Annexure-L to the writ petition. The notice addressed to the petitioner refers to the correspondence made between the Government of India dated 07.05.2018 and 25.06.2018, which is to the effect that the Bannerghatta National Park comes within the Eco Sensitive Zone. Accordingly, petitioner was issued with the notice directing him to give reply within 30 days and to stop crushing activity. Petitioner is aggrieved by that portion of the order, whereby he has been called upon to stop crushing activity.
2. The learned counsel for petitioner contends that the notice issued is under the draft notification issued by the Central Government. Secondly, the 6th respondent has given 30 days time to give reply to the said notice and also directed the crushing activities have to be closed till consideration of all the cases pending in that regard. He referred to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GOA FOUNDATION vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS in WP (Civil) No.435/2012 and submitted that before receiving the explanation by the petitioner the respondent has directed to stop the crushing activities, which is arbitrary in nature.
3. The learned AGA for respondents submits that a show cause notice was issued directing the petitioner to furnish particulars to the effect that whether the crushing area of the petitioner fell within the Eco Sensitive Zone as per the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GOA FOUNDATION, referred to supra. Though, the petitioner was granted 30 days time to give reply, till today the reply has not been submitted. Hence, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
5. After going through the notice, which is assailed in this writ petition, it is clear that Government of India have issued draft notification stating that the Bannerghatta National Park comes within the Eco Sensitive Zone. Accordingly, any crushing activities carried within the prohibited area, is contrary to the draft notification of Government of India and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in GOA FOUNDATION case, referred to supra.
6. Be that as it may, the petitioner has been given 30 days time to give explanation and to make it clear whether the crushing activities carried on by the petitioner is within the Eco Sensitive Zone or not. So far reply has not been filed. But the respondents as per the notice have directed to stop crushing activity pending submission of reply or explanation by the petitioner. The impugned direction to close the crushing activity even before receiving the explanation to the show cause notice and the direction to close all the crushing activity till disposal of all the cases pending in this regard, is prima facie opposed to principles of natural justice. But the fact remains that petitioner has not submitted any reply since July, 2018.
7. Now, in the interest of justice, we permit the petitioner to give reply within one week from today and if such reply is given, the respondent No.6, who has issued the show cause notice produced at Annexure-L dated 20/07/2018, is directed to consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of reply.
8. Further, since the crushing activity of the petitioner has been closed from 20.07.2018, at this juncture, we do not consider it appropriate to permit the petitioner to continue with the same, for the reason that if the petitioner’s crushing activity comes within the Eco Sensitive Zone of Bannerghatta National Park, it is not advisable to permit the petitioner to carry on with the crushing activity.
9. Under these circumstances, the petition stands disposed of with the above observations and directions.
Further, it is made clear that if reply is not considered within two weeks from the date of receipt by respondent No.6, petitioner shall be permitted to carry on with the crushing activity.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE VK