Karnataka High Court
M/S Vsl Mining Company Pvt Ltd vs State Of Karnataka on 4 January, 2011
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S.Bopanna
'1
IN THE HIGK COURT OF KARNATAKA AT EBANGALORE
Dated this the 43*' day of January, 2011
PRESENT
THE HONBLE3 MR.J.S.KHEHAR. CHIEF "
THE HON'BLE MR.JUS'i'I_CE3 A'.s.Ea'o'PA1xi2§:fA"'V 'V
WP No.41o86/2019 (G1vMsz£:vi--:»s')..,' T
B ETWEEN:
1.. M/ S VSL Mining Companfwféxfi; Ltd 2 '-
A Company Registered un.der*thVe-._
Companies Act, E95 ' "
Represented by its C}_1.3i'-'i it it . D ' V
Sri,M.Poobaiar1 S /Q lV'£.E\«§uthus'Waniy; ..
14th Warrl:,'i5ishofa:a
Sanduf§"BC}il.aTE' Disti'iCt " _
-V 1 * 'V ' V . Petitioner
(By Sri L
. . ' . .. .' I \ _ .
I. Stateof Karriataka
Repre-sented its 'Secretary to
V The Dep_artmen.t*.of industries and
V, Commerce._{SSI, Textiles And Mines]
Vi-E5;as.a Soudhaf
it ' V. E3angaio.re--5800()i
D" ._2L' ; TE"ie'_*Dir:°;c'tor
Departrrlent of Mines and Geology
N.o.4'Qf Khanija Bhavan,
'Race Course Road,
Bangalore" 56000 E.
D The Deputy Director (Mines)
Department of Mines and Geolog
Hospet, Bellary District
Respondents
{By Sri RC1-. Koile, AGA for respondemis]
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to call for records which
ultiinateiy resulted in pas,si.r.1g the .i.mpu.g.ned order AIIFi€XE}.F'<';'~
A dated 13.8.2010 passed by the let respondent, and the
order of the 3rd respondent Vide Annexure--B dated
3/
2
23/25.11.2010, canceiiing the stockyard permission given to
the petitioner.
This Writ Petition coming on for further consideration
this day, Chief Justice made the ioiiowing:
O R D E R
J.S.KHEHAR. C.J. (O1-a1) 3 Notice to the respondents."
Sri.R.G.Kol1e, learned :4G_oiIernmer1t" = accepts notice on behaif of res:pnndent.s:."'i.
2. The following iorcier by this Court, on 17.12.2010: A V i it ,"-L-earned.'cs:)3.ins_ei'--.for i-heapfetitioner has invited our :._attenti;t3n. _to?.thev impugned order dated 25.11.2010 V'{Anne>:ure}'B)d.=.A'e~.._p'erusal of the impugned order rev_ea1s.'ithat.'pth'e '--Stock~yard registration granted to tiiie*~petitioneI:_ has been cancelled on account of ;"the fact,Vt191at'the petitioner is neither a mining ]eas,e holder..n0r he has a processing unit.
" .W~i.ea.rned counsel for the petitioner seeks an . "adj~0_urni'nent, so as to enable him to place on the reco-rtii"of this Court, material to demonstrate, that t.he*petitioner is either a mining lease holder or " has an existing processing unit.
Prayer is allowed. Further material, if so required, be piaced on the record of this case by moving a miscellaneous Writ application. Needful. be done within one Week from today. Post for further consideration on 4.1.20.1. 1 Despite having accepted the prayer made by the learned counsei for petitioner, to enabie him to place further 'order in accortiance with law.
3 material on the record of the ease, to demonstrate that the petitioner is either a mining iease holder orjhas an existing processing unit, no such fI1af.€Fi8;i~~._1*i8.:i_'_$' placed on the record of this case.
3. In the aforesaid circi;1ms_tan_ces,'1lure":tiaVe__no other alternative, but to infer, thatthe dated 25.11.2010 has _upassed:_'v':on:f§ a valid consideration. it t
4. petitioner still has he is either a mining lease'1holderVtor. 'a1i'_ieXis'ting processing unit, it will be open to approach the competent authority viii.';v--..th_e__"I)eputy IL)irector(i\/lines) [respondent the relevant material and seek iieconsiderateiotn of the impugned order. In the aforesaid everitfiafiitsz, the Deputy Directorflviines) {respondent iNto;--3) shaii consider the claim of the petitioner and pass The order shali be passed within two months of the receipt of the material produced by the petitioner, along with a certified copy of the instant order. Alt,ernativel}n it wiii be open to the 4 petitioner to file a fresh writ petition on the same cause of action, with the aforesaid details and particuiafs-VLT 5, The instant Writ petition is disp0,o€:d aforesaid terms. ' mv* Index: Y] N