Karnataka High Court
Sri. Shreesha Nayak vs The Commissioner on 20 November, 2018
Bench: Chief Justice, S.Sujatha
W.P.No.13924/2018
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO.13924 OF 2018 (GM-MM-S)
BETWEEN:
SRI SHREESHA NAYAK
S/O SRI SHANKAR NAYAK
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
UDBHAVA
POST: PANIYADI
UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI K. CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY
KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
UDUPI DISTRICT
RAJATHADRI
MANIPAL - 576 104
UDUPI DISTRICT.
3. SENIOR GEOLOGIST
W.P.No.13924/2018
-2-
DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY
FIRST FLOOR, "A" BLOCK
RAJATHADRI
MANIPAL - 576 104
UDUPI DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.G. BHANUPRAKASH, AGA)
---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AND THE ORDER DATED
02.02.2018 AT ANNEXURE-H AND GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER
TO STAY THE ORDER DATED 02.02.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-H
AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is directed against the order dated 02.02.2018 (Annexure-H), as passed by the respondent No.3, cancelling the quarry lease in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.169 of Kanajaru village, Karkala Taluk, Udupi District measuring 80 cents on the ground that the land is a government parambok land.
The relevant background aspects of the matter are as under:
On an application for quarrying building stone being made by the petitioner, after receiving all requisite no-objection W.P.No.13924/2018 -3- certificates, the respondent No.5 executed quarry lease for a period of 5 years from 31.12.2014. By the letter dated 04.07.2017, the respondent No.2 informed the petitioner to continue the quarrying activities as per the guidelines issued by the NTTK, Surathkal, regarding blasting by adhering to the conditions imposed under the quarry lease.
It is contended that, the respondent No.2 suddenly, issued notice dated 24.07.2017 indicating that the Deputy Commissioner, Udupi had directed the Tahasildar concerned and the Panchayath Raj Engineering Sub-Division, Karkala to hold a spot inspection of the land and to submit a report and also called upon the petitioner to stop the quarrying work immediately. The said notice was challenged before this Court in writ petition bearing Nos.34408-34409/2017, in which interim order was granted to continue with the quarrying operation on 08.08.2017. The writ petitions came to be disposed of by the order dated 21.11.2017, setting aside the notice dated 24.07.2017.
It is further contended that the respondent No.3 issued notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why the quarry W.P.No.13924/2018 -4- lease executed in favour of the petitioner be not cancelled, to which the petitioner submitted his reply. However, the respondent No.3 by its proceedings dated 02.02.2018, cancelled the quarry lease.
It is further contended that similar notice issued to the petitioner in relation to a stone crusher unit run by him and others, was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.8928/2018. This Court by its order dated 23.03.2018 set aside such notice and remitted the matter to the Deputy Commissioner concerned.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the quarry lease is executed by the respondent No.3 only after all requirements had been complied with. He further submits that there is no prohibition to issue licence for quarrying operation in a parambok land. It is further submitted that cancellation of safer zone, without intimating the petitioner of the said proceedings, is in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Learned Additional Government Advocate has attempted to argue that the quarry lease and the crushing licence was erroneously sanctioned in favour of the petitioner for a land W.P.No.13924/2018 -5- which falls under the Government parambok land, and it would cause serious threat to the tank and pollute the water and hence, sought for dismissal of the petition.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, it appears appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with similar orders as passed in W.P.No.8928/2018, while disapproving the impugned order dated 02.02.2018 cancelling the quarry lease and by remanding the matter for reconsideration afresh.
In the order dated 23.03.2018 in W.P.No.8928/2018, this Court has found that form-C issued to the petitioner was cancelled without dealing with the submissions made by the petitioner in his reply to the show cause notice and the order in question was not a speaking order. It was also observed that merely for the land in question being parambok, the licence in question could not have been cancelled.
In the present matter too, it appears that while passing the order impugned, adverse to the existing right of the petitioner, the authorities concerned have not taken into consideration the submissions of the petitioner. W.P.No.13924/2018 -6-
In the totality of circumstances, it appears just and proper that the impugned order be set aside and matter be restored for reconsideration while allowing the petitioner to appear before the respondent No.3 to make his submissions.
The petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. The order dated 02.02.2018 is set aside and the matter is restored for reconsideration of respondent No.3.
The petitioner shall appear before the respondent No.3 on 18.12.2018 or any other date to be notified by him, who shall take fresh decision in the matter in accordance with law.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE ca