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 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
E}at.ecl this the 4??" Clay of January, 201 it
PRESEZNT
THE I-IONBLIEZ MR.J.S.KHEHAR, CHIEF JUSTICE.»
AND " C'
THE HONBLE i\/{RJUSTICE A.s.soPA1§I'NA5;---.: _
W.PNo.-41085/2010 [GM--MM;V~S'):"-,_ '
BETWEEN:
1. M/' S VSL Mining Company Pvt7Ltd--_
A Company Registered under the:
Companies Act, 1956 " '
Represented by its GPA I-i_o1Vde_r K
Sri.M.PoobaIan SXQ M Muthuswaroy
14th. Ward, Ashoka .Coi(;=_11y;_' V C "
Sandur, Beilafy 'Distr}iot
_ W V. Petitioner
(By Sri L M Chidamandayya,').AdV§';iCIa V) H
1 . State of Kamai'taka._ .. _
Represented by itsseoretary to
The DeVpa'2'tmk:nt'«.of 'industries and
4;: Coxnmeree (SS1, Textiles And Mines)
it "~V;ii<as.aa Sou'o"i:~a,"
" 'A A _ E3anga1'orve~»560001
. cw
__ t'I'he"'I)_iI'eiCtor
Department of Mines And Geoiogy
No'.49,«""Khanija Bhavan,
Rage Course Road,
E3ar1gaIore--56GO01
it Deputy Director (Mines)
Department of Mines And Geology
Hospet, Beilary District
Respondents
{By Sri R.G. Kolie. AGA for respondents)
This Writ Petition is filed under Artieies 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to call for records which
ultimately resulted in passing the impugned order Annexure»
A dated 13.8.2010 passed by the 1st respondent, and the
order of the 3rd respondent Vide Ar1neXure--B dated
2
23/1Z5.].1.2010, canceiiing the stockyard permission given to
the petitioner and ei.c.,
This Writ Petition coming on for further consideration
this day, Chief Justice made the foiiowing : " ~
ORDER
J.S.KHEH.AR, C.J. (Oral) :
Notice to the respondents':-._ accepts notice on behalf of .1fesxpond_ents/\
2. The following by this Court, on _','.T earned 'ii-o__1.1_nse1~.ifor' th.e...p'etitioner has invited our attenitiaon to1,the'impu_gned order dated 25.11.2010 '{Annexure?'~B_); perusal of the impugned order retreats, 'that.,,'the"-Stocivyard registration granted to the's.pet.itione1ihas been cancelled on account of the fact, 'that'-the petitioner is neither a mining ~ lease holdernovr he has a processing unit. Wifiearned counsel for the petitioner seeks an 0' 8,dj.Qti.fI1IB€Ht, so as to enable him to piace on the reco'i'_djof this Court, material to demonstrate, that ._ the petitioner is either a mining lease holder or .. has an existing processing unit.
Prayer is allowed. Further materiai, if so " required, be piaced on the record of this case by moving a misceliarieous writ application. Needful, be done within. one Week frorn today. Post for further consideration on 4. .1 .201 1."
Despite having accepted the prayer made by the Iearned counsel for petitioner, to enable .him to piace further Sri.R.G.Ko1Ie, learned ' i-Advjocate 0' 'order in accordance with law.
3 material on the record of the case, to derrronstrate that the petitioner is either a mining lease hoider or has an existing processing unit, no such material.<ha'se-been placed on the record of this case.
3. In the aforesaid circtinistances,_l'we other aiternative, but to the.iinpi;i.gri'ed'lorde'r' V dated 25.11.2010 has l"p_assed"v--.onv'§ a Valid consideration.
4. tliel" .atL.ol\:re.' the petitioner stiil has any n1.at7e.npal that he is either a mining lease{v}iolderl'dovr ariler>_r;isti'1'1g processing unit, it will be open torathe to approach the competent atithority vif.z;.",V-..tifi_e_ppI)eputy Director(i\/lines) (respondent the relevant material and seek . 're(:onsid--efi§at.ioln of the impugned order. In the aforesaid everitillialitjtr, the Deputy Dire<:tor(l\/lines) (respondent * x_N;o';-3) shall consider the claim of the petitioner and pass The order shall he passed within two months of the receipt of the material produced by the petitioner, along with a certified copy of the instant order. Aiternatiiveiy, it will be open to the 4 petitioner to file 3. fresh writ petition on the same cause of action, with the aforesaid detaiis and particulars.
5. The instant writ petition is disposed of, j" A aforesaid terms. ».
1»nV=£= hzdex: 'W