Karnataka High Court
Sri S Gopal vs State Of Karnataka on 22 December, 2020
Bench: Chief Justice, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. ABHAY S.OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO.12787 / 2020 (GM-MMS)
BETWEEN:
Sri S.Gopal,
S/o M.Subbaraju,
Aged about 50 years,
Partner of Rounaq Constructions Firm,
R/o Door No.108, Ranipet, 5th Ward,
Hospet-583 201,Bellary District. ...PETITIONER
(By Smt. Anuparna Bordoloi, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Represented by the Director,
Department of Mines & Geology,
Khanija Bhavan, Race Course Road,
Bengaluru-560 001.
2. Deputy Director,
Minor Mineral Section,
Department of Mines & Geology,
Khanija Bhavan,
Race Course Road,
Bengaluru-560 001.
2
3. Senior Geologist,
Department of Mines & Geology,
Koppal District-583 231.
4. Deputy Conservator of Forest,
Koppal Forest Division,
Forest Department,
Koppal District-583 231.
5. Range Forest Officer,
Munirabad Range Forest,
Forest Department,
Munirabad,
Koppal District-583 234.
6. Deputy Commissioner/Chairman,
District Task Force Committee
(Quarry & Mines),
Koppal District-583 231.
7. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest,
Government of Karnataka,
Forest Department,
Aranya Bhavan,
Bengaluru-560 003. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri I.Tharanath Poojari, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE LETTER DATED 25.01.2019 ISSUED BY THE R-4
REFUSING TO GRANT NO OBJECTION TO EXECUTE
RENEWAL/EXTENSION LEASE DEED TO THE PETITIONER
ON THE ACCOUNT THAT THE AREA FALLS UNDER DEEMED
FOREST (ANNEXURE-A) & ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 17TH DECEMBER 2020, COMING ON FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER' ON THIS DAY,
S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
1. Petitioner was granted quarrying lease bearing No.KPL 322/2011-12 for building stone in an area of 2 acres in Survey No.4 of Hussainpura village, Koppal District, for a period of five years on 19th November 2011. The said lease was to expire on 18th November 2016. The petitioner had made an application for renewal of the said lease on 10th August 2016. On 12th August 2016, the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2016 (for short, 'the said Rules of 2016'), came to be notified and in terms of the amended Rule 8A of the said Rules of 2016, applications for renewal of quarry lease which were pending prior to the said Rules of 2016 coming into force, are deemed to be extended for a period of twenty years.
2. The State Government on 18th July 2017 notified the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2017, which provided extension for a period of thirty years for mineral based industry quarry leases. Since the third respondent had failed to consider the renewal application filed by the petitioner even after the amended Rules of 2016 and 2017 had come into force, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.43559/2017 before this Court with a prayer to extend the quarry lease dated 19th November 2011 4 considering the renewal application dated 10th August 2016. This Court by its order dated 21st September 2017 allowed the writ petition holding that the petitioner is entitled for the extension of lease for a period of twenty years and directed the authorities to grant the formal document permitting the petitioner to continue with the quarrying operations in the leasehold land in terms of the amended Rules within a period of two months. This Court also observed that the authorities shall not interfere with the running of the quarrying operations by the petitioner.
3. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.43559/2017, the petitioner requested the third respondent to comply with the said orders and also prayed for issuance of mineral dispatch permit. However, the concerned respondent failed to act on the prayer made by the petitioner and petitioner's application for issuance of mineral dispatch permit along with the demand draft submitted towards requisite fee was returned to the petitioner. The petitioner once again made a representation on 23rd April 2018 to the third respondent for issuance of mineral dispatch permit and also to comply with the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.43559/2017. In turn, petitioner received a letter dated 28th April 2018 informing him that mineral dispatch permit will be issued 5 only after the Forest Department issues a clearance. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner had filed W.P.No.27793/2018 before this Hon'ble Court with a prayer to direct the respondents to issue mineral dispatch permits without insisting for forest clearance. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court vide its order dated 11th January 2019 and the third respondent was directed to issue mineral dispatch permit for quarrying building stones within a period of two weeks from the date of the order.
4. Subsequent to the said order, petitioner submitted a fresh application for mineral dispatch permit and also paid requisite fees on the said application. Since the respondent had failed to take any action on the said application dated 23rd January 2019, a legal notice was issued to the third respondent calling upon him to comply the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.27793/2018. Thereafter, a contempt petition was filed before this Court in CCC.No.332/2019 and during the pendency of the said contempt proceedings, the third respondent issued order dated 7th March 2019 vide Annexure-B renewing petitioner's quarry lease for a period of twenty years i.e., from 19th November 2011 to 18th November 2031 subject to six conditions imposed therein. Condition No.1 imposed therein was to obtain forest clearance under Rule 6 8(2) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral and Concession Rules, 1994 and under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. Though the petitioner had represented to the third respondent that it was not necessary for him to obtain forest clearance as it was a case of deemed renewal, the third respondent insisted that all the six conditions imposed in the order dated 7th March 2019 were required to be complied and on this ground refused to execute the extension lease deed and issue mineral dispatch permit and it is under these circumstances, the petitioner has once again approached this Court in this writ petition with a prayer to quash Condition No.1 relating to obtaining forest clearance in the order dated 7th March 2019 amongst other prayers made in the writ petition.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the third respondent was not justified in imposing Condition No.1 in the order dated 7th March 2019 in view of the fact that the petitioner's case was of a deemed renewal. She also submitted that earlier reports while granting quarry lease would go to show that this area is a revenue area, and therefore, forest clearance is not necessary. She submitted that inspite the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.43559/2017 and W.P.No.27793/2018, petitioner is not in a position to carry on quarrying activities and the impugned 7 condition is imposed deliberately to circumvent the orders passed by this Court in the earlier writ petitions.
6. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that since there is a complete prohibition for carrying quarrying activities in forest land, until the petitioner obtains a forest clearance as required under law, the petitioner cannot carry quarrying activities in the leased area. He submits that the conditions imposed are in accordance with law, and therefore, petitioner is required to comply with the same.
7. It is not in dispute that the subject quarry was leased to the petitioner initially for a period of five years from 19th November 2011 after obtaining clearance from all the departments. The third respondent has now issued order dated 7th March 2019 renewing the lease for a period of twenty years in view of the deeming clause provided under the said Rules of 2016. It is not in dispute that there is no adjudication made by any authority as to whether the leased area is a forest or not. Even the learned Additional Government Advocate does not dispute this aspect of the matter. In the absence of any such adjudication by the competent authority and in the light of the orders passed by this Court in the earlier writ petitions filed by 8 the petitioner, the third respondent is not justified in imposing Condition No.1 in his order dated 7th March 2019, wherein the petitioner's lease has been extended for a period of twenty years from 19th November 2011 to 18th November 2031. The impugned condition is unreasonable. Under the circumstances, we deem it fit to dispose of the writ petition quashing the impugned Condition No.1 in order dated 7th March 2019 issued by the third respondent with a direction to the third respondent to execute the extension lease deed in terms of his order dated 7th March 2019 and also issue mineral dispatch permits to the petitioner pursuant to his application dated 23rd January 2019. Accordingly, we pass the following:
ORDER
i) Writ petition is partly allowed;
ii) The Condition No.1 imposed by the third respondent in its order dated 7th March 2019 vide Annexure-B is quashed;
iii) A direction is issued to the third respondent to execute the lease deed pursuant to his order dated 7th March 2019 -
Annexure-B and issue mineral dispatch permits to the petitioner pursuant to his application dated 23rd January 2019 if the petitioner has otherwise complied all other statutory requirements. 9
iv) The aforesaid directions issued by this Court shall be complied by the third respondent within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
v) The issue whether the leased area or a part of it is a forest is left open to be decided by the Competent Authority. If the answer to the issue is in affirmative, Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, will apply.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE KK