Karnataka High Court
Dayanand Mahadev Minache vs State Of Karnataka on 11 July, 2022
Author: Alok Aradhe
Bench: Alok Aradhe
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M. KHAZI
W.P. NO.9921 OF 2017 (GM-MM-S)
BETWEEN:
1. DAYANAND MAHADEV MINACHE
S/O MAHADEV MINACHE
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/O JUGUL POST-591242
ATHANI TALUKA
BELAGAVI DISTRICT.
2. ARUNKUMAR MARUTI MINACHE
S/O MARUTI MINACHE
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/O SHAHPUR POST-591242
ATHANI TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT.
3. PRAKASH GOPAL GAYAKWAD
S/O GOPAL GAYAKAWAD
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/O NAVANIHAL POST-591234
ATHANI TALUKA, BELAGAVI DISTRICT.
... PETITIONERS
(BY MR. R.G. KOLLE, ADV.,)
AND:
2
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES
VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU
BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY
KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU-560001.
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY
APMC ROAD, BELAGAVI CITY
BELAGAVI-590001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA)
---
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT R-4 TO
REFUND THE ENTIRE OR PROPORTIONATE BID AMOUNT
AND SECURITY DEPOSIT TO THESE PETITIONERS, FOR
HAVING PREVENTED THEM FROM CARRYING OUT
QUARRYING OPERATIONS AS PER AGREEMENT OF
QUARRYING LEASE / LICENCE FOR TENDER-CUM-AUCTION
SALE OF ORDINARY SAND, FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR
EFFECTIVE FROM 5.1.2010 TILL 4.1.2011 BY VIRTUE OF AN
AD-INTERIM ORDER DATED 24.04.2010 PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.13355/2010 WHICH CAME TO BE
MODIFIED IN TERMS OF A FINAL ORDER DATED 5.4.2011
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN MISC.W.P.3677/2011
ALONG WITH INTEREST @ 18% PER ANNUM FROM THE
3
DATE OF DEPOSIT TILL FINAL PAYMENT, BY SETTING ASIDE
OR QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 14.12.2016 PASSED BY
R-4 PURSUANT TO AN ORDER DATED 19.09.2016 PASSED
BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.37263-37265/2016 AT
ANNEX-A. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO DIRECT
RESPONDENTS TO IMMEDIATELY REFUND AT LEASE 3/4TH
BID AMOUNT AND SECURITY DEPOSIT PAID BY THESE
PETITIONERS.
THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioners inter alia seek a writ of certiorari to the Deputy Director, Department of Mines and Geology to refund the entire or proportionate amount paid by the petitioners as well as the amount of Security Deposit to the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners were prevented from carrying out quarrying operation as per the agreement of quarry lease for a period of one year i.e., from 05.01.2010 till 04.01.2011 on account of an interim order dated 24.10.2010 passed in W.P.No.13355/2010.
4
2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal, briefly stated, are that the petitioners were the highest bidders in the auction held for sand mining for a period of one year with effect from 05.01.2010 to 04.01.2011 in respect of various survey numbers 'as is was is' basis. It is the case of the petitioners that on account of an interim order dated 24.10.2010 passed in W.P.No.13355/2010, the petitioners could not carry out any quarrying operation for a period i.e., from 20.04.2010 till 04.01.2011.
3. A quarry lease was executed in favour of the petitioners, in which the petitioners were permitted to carry out quarrying operation for a period from 05.01.2010 till 04.01.2011. After expiry of period of lease executed in favour of the petitioners, the petitioners by a communication dated 03.01.2011 were apprised that the quarry lease period came to be extended in their favour provided they pay the bid 5 amount as well as the requisite charge in this regard. The petitioners thereupon by a communication dated 12.11.2011 expressed their willingness to have extension of period of lease and sought time for payment of the requisite amount. However, the requisite amount was not paid by the petitioners. Thereupon by a notice dated 23.02.2011, the petitioners were informed that their application seeking extension of the period of lease for three months has been kept in abeyance. The petitioners, however, made a claim seeking refund of the proportionate bid amount as well as security deposit, which was rejected by the Deputy Director, Mining and Geology Department by an order dated 14.12.2016. In the aforesaid factual background, this petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the order dated 20.04.2010 6 passed by division bench of this court in W.P.No.13355/2010, the petitioners could not carry out quarrying operation with effect from 20.04.2010 till 04.01.2011 and therefore, are entitled to refund of the proportionate bid amount as well as security deposit. It is further submitted that there is no evidence on record to indicate that the petitioners are engaged in quarrying operation. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on decision of the Supreme Court in 'HARYANA MINING COMPANY VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS', 2022 SCC ONLINE SC 577.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has invited the attention of this court to the terms and conditions contained in the quarry lease executed in favour of the petitioners. It is further submitted that the sand policy came into force 7 with effect from 29.01.2011. Learned Additional Government Advocate while inviting the attention of this court to condition Nos.11 and 17 of the Ordinary Sand Auction Rules and Regulations. It is also submitted that the new sand policy came into force with effect from 29.01.2011 and it is also submitted that this court did not direct the prohibition of quarrying activities in the State of Karnataka but only prevented the use of mechanized boat in quarrying operations. It is further submitted that the petitioners, after expiry of the period of lease, themselves made a request on 20.12.2011 to extend the lease period and sought time to make payment of the amount due for extension of quarry lease. It is also submitted that all similarly situate person like that of the petitioner, a division bench of this court has dismissed the writ petition viz., W.P.Nos.19064- 8 19065/2012 to which reference itself has been made by the petitioners.
6. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. The order dated 22.04.2010 passed in W.P.No.13355/2010 reads as under:
Heard.
Admitted.
Learned Government Advocate is directed to take notice for the respondents.
Issue ad-interim stay of condition No.3 imposed in the Government Order dated 19.03.2010 permitting the lessees to use one mechanized boat for quarrying until further orders.
Thus, from perusal of the aforesaid order, it is evident that only the condition which permits the lessees to use one mechanized boat for the purpose of quarrying was stayed by a division bench of this 9 court. Thus, it is evident that thereupon no ban on the mining operation.
7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was a complete ban on the mining activities for the period between 05.01.2010 to 04.01.2011 is incorrect and does not deserve acceptance. It is also pertinent to mention that quarry lease was granted to the petitioner for a period of one year from 05.01.2010 to 04.01.2011. On expiry of the said period of quarry lease, the petitioners themselves by a communication dated 12.04.2011 requested the Deputy Director to extend the quarry lease for a further period of three months and sought time to make payment. If the petitioners would not have been able to carry out quarrying operation, they should have brought this fact to the knowledge of the authorities at the first instance. On the other hand, the petitioners themselves have sought renewal of the 10 quarry lease. Thereafter, the petitioners did not pay the requisite amount for renewal of the quarry lease, and thereupon a notice was issued to the petitioners. The contention of the petitioners that on account of an interim order dated 22.04.2010, they were unable to carry out quarrying operation is wholly misconceived.
For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any fault with the order dated 14.12.2016 passed by the Deputy Director, warranting interference of this court. In the result, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE SS