IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2019
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.36509 OF 2018 (GM-MM-S)
BETWEEN:
VIKATAKAVI S/O R. DASAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, NO.14, “MARUTHI NILAYA”
1ST MAIN, BEGUR VITTASANDRA ROAD, NEAR POST OFFICE, BEGUR BENGALURU – 560 071 (BY SHRI R.G. KOLLE, ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONER AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU, BENGALURU – 560 001 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT., DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001 3. THE DIRECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, BADDIHALLI, RING ROAD, TUMKURU – 572 104 5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TUMKUR – 572 102 6. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS TUMKUR DISTRICT, OFFICE OF DCF, TUMKURU – 572 102 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP) ---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 3RD RESPONDENT DIRECTOR & COMPETENT AUTHORITY TO IMMEDIATELY GRANT & EXECUTE A CONDITIONAL QUARRY LEASE IN FORM-GL-C, TO EXTRACT ORNAMENTAL STONE IN GOVT. LAND BEARING SY.NO.123 OF BYALYA VILLAGE, MADHUGIRI TALUKA, TUMKUR DIST., OVER AN AREA OF 10.00 ACRES AS PER QL APPLICATION DATED 07.11.2014 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B, VIDE NEWLY AMENDED RULE 8(6) & ITS PROVISO EFFECTIVE FROM 18.11.2017, PURSUANT TO AN ORDER DATED 21.09.2017 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP NO.42348/2017 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A FOR DEEMING TO HAVE RECEIVED REVENUE & FOREST NOC AS WELL AS RECEIPT OF TECHNICAL REPORT DATED 08.06.2018 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C & ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner relied upon an order dated 21st September 2017 passed by the First Court in the earlier writ petition. The grievance made in the petition is that the application for grant of quarrying lease is kept pending. The petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus in terms of prayer clause (a) directing the third respondent to immediately grant and execute a conditional quarrying lease.
3. Our attention is invited to the order of the Apex Court dated 11th December 2018 on Interlocutory Application No.1000 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.202/1995 in T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad v/s Union of India and others. Our attention is invited to the following part of the order of the Apex Court ;
“It is submitted by the learned Amicus that this issue has been pending since sometime in December, 2006. 12 years have gone-by but no effective steps have been taken by the State Governments in respect of the National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries mentioned above.
Under the circumstances, we direct that an area of 10 kms around these 21 National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries be declared as Eco Sensitive Zone by the MoEF. The declaration be made by the MoEF at the earliest.
Liberty is granted to the State Governments to move an application for modification of this order along with proposal only two weeks after submission of the proposals to the MoEF.”
(emphasis added) There is no dispute that the aforesaid directions issued by the Apex Court hold good.
4. It is also not in dispute that the land in respect of which quarrying lease was prayed for by the petitioner falls in the area of 10 kilometres around Thimulapura Sanctuary.
5. Thus, it follows that so long the directions of the Apex Court quoted above are in force, the respondents cannot grant quarrying lease in the area of 10 kilometres around Thimulapura Sanctuary.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner makes a limited grievance. His submission is that the State Government has not moved the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change of the Government of India for making necessary declaration in terms of the order of the Apex Court. We are sure that the State Government will take necessary steps to implement the directions of the Apex Court in its true letter and spirit and submit necessary proposal to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change of the Government of India.
7. In view of the aforesaid directions of the Apex Court, no relief can be granted to the petitioner as prayed for.
8. Subject to what is observed above, the petition is rejected.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/- JUDGE
AHB