Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Nandhi Minerals vs State Of Karnataka on 29 November, 2013

Bench: Chief Justice, S.N.Satyanarayana

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
       DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013
                     : PRESENT :
        HON'BLE MR. D.H.WAGHELA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                         AND
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
        WRIT PETITION No. 18174 / 2004 (GM-MMS)

BETWEEN

M/S NANDHI MINERALS
GADIGI PALACE, CAR STREET,
BELLARY - 583 101,
REPT. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
SRI ALLUM PRASHANTH,
S/O SRI ALLUM VEERBHADRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O BELLARY.

                                            ... PETITIONER

          ( BY SMT. S.R.ANURADHA, ADVOCATE. )

AND

1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
     BY ITS SECRETARY,
     DEPT. OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES
     M S BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
     BANGALORE - 560 001.

2.   THE DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
     DEPT. OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
     5TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVANA,
     RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

3.   UNION OF INDIA
     REPT. BY SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF INDIA
     MINISTRY OF COAL AND MINES
     DEPARTMENT OF MINES,
                                   2



     SHASTRI BHAVAN,
     NEW DELHI - 110 001.

4.   M/S S K SARAWAGI & CO. PVT. LTD.,
     REPT. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
     VIZIANAGARAM.

                                                 ... RESPONDENTS

        ( BY SRI G.NARENDAR, A.G.A. FOR R-1 & R-2.
       SRI SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH, C.G.C. FOR R-3.
      SRI K.SASHIKIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-4. )


     WRIT   PETITION     FILED        PRAYING    TO    QUASH    THE
NOTIFICATION    DT.    18.11.2003      ISSUED     BY    THE   STATE
GOVERNMENT VIDE ANNEXURE-N, QUASH THE LETTER OF
THE STATE GOVERNMENT DT. 21.2.2004 VIDE ANNEXURE-P,
INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO THE AREA APPLIED FOR BY THE
PETITIONER AND DIRECT THE STATE GOVERNMENT TO
CONSIDER PETITIONER'S APPLICATION DT. 18.9.1995 FOR
MINING LEASE OVER AN AREA OF 25 HECTARES AND THE
APPLICATION    DT.    16.4.2003       FOR   AN   AREA   OF    148.44
HECTARES.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                          ORDER

D.H.WAGHELA, CJ (ORAL) :

1. The petitioner in the present petition has challenged the validity of the order/communication dated 21.2.2004 3 passed by the State Government recommending grant of mining lease in favour of Respondent No.4 - M/s S.K.Sarwagi & Co. Pvt. Ltd., over an extent of 148.44 hectares of land in Navalatti Village, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District, comprised at Sl. No. 8 of the notification dated 15.3.2003 issued under Rule 59 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, by the State Government and seeking the prior approval of the Central Government under Section 5(1) of the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957.

2. It is stated at the Bar that an interim order of stay has been operating in the connected matters and the Central Government has not passed any order under Section 5(1) of the M.M.D.R. Act, 1957. The counsel submit that the recommendation or proposal of the State Government has been returned by the Central Government in view of the interim orders granted by this court.

3. During the pendency of this petition, the Apex Court has, in the matter of Geomin Minerals & Marketing Private 4 Limited Vs. State of Orissa [(2013)7 SCC 571], held at paragraph-29 that, until the Central Government has passed an order either granting or refusing approval under Section 5(1) and Section 11(5) of the Act, it would not be permissible for any person to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and any such petition, if filed, would be premature.

4. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment, it would be unnecessary for this court to go into the merits of the matter since the petition is admittedly not maintainable and liable to be dismissed as premature. It is for the authorities of the State and Central Governments to take appropriate action and decision in accordance with law, without being influenced by this order. It is needless to clarify that the contentions of the parties are not dealt with herein and they remain open to be agitated if and when an occasion arises therefor.

5. With the above observations and clarification, the petition is disposed as dismissed, with no order as to cost 5 and interim relief, if any is operating in the matter, stands vacated.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-

JUDGE ckc/-