Karnataka High Court
Sri Gouli Ramesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 February, 2022
Bench: Chief Justice, Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
®
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.9916 OF 2021 (GM-MMS)
BETWEEN:
SRI. GOULI RAMESH
S/O D.G. MAHADEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
RESIDING AT WARD NO. 17
RAYAR STREET, GANGAVATHI TALUK
KOPPAL DISTRICT- 583 227
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRAKASH.B.S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIAL DEPARTMENT
(MSME AND MINES), VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE- 560 001
2. THE DIRECTOR/COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
KHANIJA BHAVANA, R.C. ROAD
BANGALORE- 560 001
3. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BHAVAN
KOPPAL- 583 231
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)
-2-
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE
NATURE OF A WRIT QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED
17.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT
OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, KOPPAL. THE COPY OF THE
ENDORSEMENT DATED 17.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR
GEOLOGIST HAS BEEN PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY,
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ J MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs:
I. ISSUE a writ of certiorari or order or direction in the nature of a writ QUASHING the Endorsement dated 17.10.2019 issued by the Senior Geologist, Department of Mines and Geology, Koppal, bearing No.Ga.Bu.Ee. Khokhavi. Ka Ga. Gu-Aa.2019-20/1822 to 1824. The copy of the Endorsement dated 17.10.2019 issued by the Senior Geologist has been produced at Annexure-A. II. Direct the respondents to grant the quarry lease by considering the application dated 24.11.1997 of the petitioner for grant of quarry lease produced at Annexure-B without reference Rule 8b(2)(d) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2016.
III. GRANT such other relief or reliefs and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.
2. The petitioner's father had made an application to the 1st respondent through the 2nd respondent for grant of mining lease for mining White Quartz on -3- 24.11.1997 which was at that time classified as a major mineral as per Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.
3. The lease was sought for to an extent of 78.34 acres in Sy.No.19/2, 3 and 4 of Honnagadde Village, Kustagi Taluk, Koppal District.
4. The father of the petitioner expired on 31.08.2015 and as such, the petitioner claiming the benefit under Rule 25-A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, which permits the legal heirs seeks to prosecute the matter. The petitioner contends that in pursuance of the application dated 24.11.1997, a recommendation was made by the Director, Department of Mines and Geology for issuance of environmental clearance and approved mining plan in the year 1999.
5. While things stood thus, on 10.02.2015, the white quartz was re-classified from a major mineral to a minor mineral. In this background, -4- the petitioner contends that he would be entitled to the deeming fiction of grant of NOC and as such, the application of the petitioner is saved application and eligible application subsequent to the amendment to the Rules in the year 2015, which came into effect from 12.08.2016.
6. On the basis of the deeming fiction, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the application which is stated to have been filed in the year 1997 had been considered and NOCs by the revenue department and forest department is deemed to have been issued within a period of 90 days from the date of the making of the application. On this ground, he submits that the impugned endorsement dated 17th October 2019 by virtue of which the application has been rejected on the ground that 'No Objection Certificate' has not been received is bad and the said endorsement is required to be quashed, consequently the reliefs sought for in -5- the above Writ Petition are required to be granted.
7. Sri.S.S.Mahendra, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, would contend that when the application was filed, the white quartz was a major mineral, which became a minor mineral only in the year 2013 and as such, the consideration of the application of the petitioner would have to be done in pursuance of the amendment which happened in the year 2013, which does not provide for a deeming fiction. There was a requirement of a physical 'No Objection Certificate' from the Forest Department, which is required to be obtained and in this regard, he relies upon the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.51615/2017 (SRI.GIRISH H.E. VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS, DECIDED ON 28.02.2020), more particularly Para 8 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
-6-"8. In this case, the petitioner is relying upon Clause (d-1) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B of the said Rules. It is not the case of the petitioner that no objection certificate was received by the Department of Mines and Geology from the Deputy Conservator of Forest before 12th August 2016. If the petitioner's case is to be considered under sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B which carves out an exception to sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B, the conditions in clause (d-1) in sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B must have been complied with. It is irrelevant whether the Department of Mines and Geology had called for NOC. The fact remains that Clause (d-1) will apply, only if by 12th August 2016, NOC of the Deputy Conservator of Forest is received. In the fact, the said requirement is not fulfilled. Therefore, the case of the petitioner will not be covered by Clause (d-1) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B of the said Rules".
8. On the above grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
9. Heard Sri. Prakash.B.S., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.S.S.Mahendra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents and perused the records.
10. The short question in this matter that is to be considered by this Court is as to Whether there is a deemed fiction in regard to the application filed by the petitioner and whether the same could be considered to be eligible or saved application in -7- terms of Clause d(1) of Rule 8B of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2016.
11. As aforementioned, on the date when the application was filed by the father of the Petitioner, white quartz was a major mineral, which came to be re-classified as a minor mineral only on 10.02.2015. By that day, the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules has been amended on 16.12.2013. By virtue of which, the deeming fiction had been deleted from the statute book. Thus, the application of the petitioner would have to be considered as on 10.02.2015 when white quartz was re-classified from major mineral to a minor mineral.
12. That being so, on 10.02.2015, there was no deeming fiction which was available which would enure to the benefit of the petitioner. If that is so, on the amendment being introduced in the year 2016, the said Rule requiring that as on that -8- date, for the application to be saved or to be eligible, all the 'No Objection Certificates' were required to be obtained prior to 12.08.2016.
13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Forest department's NOC has not been obtained before 12.08.2016 and has infact not been obtained even as on today. Such being the case, the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.51615/2017 stated supra would be applicable making the application of the petitioner ineligible for consideration.
14. In this background, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned endorsement at Annexure-A and we dismiss the Writ Petition.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE PRS*