IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.43965 OF 2014 (GM – RES) BETWEEN:
VICAT SAGAR CEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT RELIANCE MAGESTIC, BUILDING DOOR NO.8-2-626, ROAD NO.11, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD – 500 034.
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, RAJ KUMAR JOSHI.
(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, ADV.,) AND:
1. KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, 82, SHAKTI BHAWAN, 3RD FLOOR, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT & FORESTS, PARYAVARAN BHAVAN, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI – 110 003.
…PETITIONER 3. KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, “PARISARA BHAVAN”, #49, CHURCH STREET, BANGALORE – 560 001.
(BY SRI.AJAY J NANDALIKE, ADV., FOR R1;
…RESPONDENTS R2 AND R3 DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 09.09.2014) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THE ACTION OF THE R-1 TERMINATING THE AGREEMENT DATED 28.02.2014 BY ITS LETTER DATED 26/28.08.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE – A AND ALL ACTIONS PURSUANT THERETO AS ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL AND THEREFORE NULL AND VOID AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri. Vikas Rojipura, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri. Ajay J. Nandalike, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
2. Petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the parties, same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks a direction declaring the action of the respondent No.1 in terminating the agreement dated 28.02.2014 as arbitrary and illegal.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner while inviting the attention of this Court to the notification dated 03.04.2007 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, submitted that in view of Rule 2 of the Rules notified by the aforesaid gazette notification, the respondents have no authority in law to control the action of the petitioner in selling the fly ash.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent was unable to controvert the aforesaid legal position.
6. From a bare perusal of the order dated 28.08.2014 it is evident that the contract awarded in favour of the petitioner has been terminated on the ground that the petitioner has sold the fly ash to third parties. The respondent admittedly had no authority in law to control the sale of fly ash by the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order terminating the licence in view of clause-2 of the notification dated 03.04.2007, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is accordingly quashed.
7. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of.
Status-quo ante shall be maintained with respect to the amount of security deposit made by the petitioner.
Sd/- JUDGE RD