Karnataka High Court
Harron K vs The Deputy Director on 23 September, 2020
Author: Abhay S. Oka
Bench: Abhay S. Oka
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.9883 OF 2020 (GM-MM-S)
BETWEEN:
HARRON K.
S/O MOOSE KUNHI
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
KAJEKKAR STONE CRUSHERS
TENKA KAJEKKAR
BANTWAL, D.K DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SACHIN B. S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
JUGAL TOWER, MALLIKATTE
MANGALURU - 575 002.
....RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. I. THARANATH POOJARY, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE / ORDER DATED 17.08.2020
ISSUED BY RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-A.
2
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. We have also heard the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
2. As directed under the order dated 18th September 2020, a copy of the order passed in W.P.No.8473/2020 by this court, is produced before the court.
3. The petitioner is holding two quarrying leases bearing Q.L.No.227 and Q.L.No.228 granted for a period of twenty years with effect from 21st October 2010. Apart from that, the petitioner was granted a license under Section 3 of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011. The challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the notice dated 17th August 2020 issued by the respondent by which the petitioner has been directed to immediately stop the quarrying work and transportation of 3 building stone excavated from the lands subject-matter of Q.L.No.227 and Q.L.No.228.
4. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that apart from the fact that on merits, the impugned notice is completely misconceived, during the subsistence of lease, there is no power vesting in the respondent to direct the lease holders to stop the quarrying operations.
5. The learned Additional Government Advocate in support of the impugned notice, submitted that the impugned notice was required to be issued as the petitioner is using explosives in violation of sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994.
6. We have considered the submissions. Under the provisions of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short 'the said Rules'), there is no specific provision empowering the competent authority or the controlling authority or the respondent to direct a lease holder to stop the quarrying operation on the ground of violation of sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of 4 the said Rules. There is only one provision for suspending the quarrying operation which is sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-K of the said Rules. It can be invoked when quarrying operations are not carried out in accordance with the quarrying plan / simplified quarrying plan as contemplated under sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-K. However, the allegation contemplated under sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 of the said Rules does not find place in the impugned order.
7. Perusal of Rule 6 shows that in the event a lessee commits breach of the terms and conditions specified in the said Rules or in the quarrying lease, under sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the said Rules, the State Government has power to impose a fine and also a power to determine the lease. Sub- rule (3) of Rule 6 of the said Rules incorporates requirement of giving notice of thirty days.
8. Thus, it is very clear that the respondent had no power under the said Rules to direct the petitioner to stop the quarrying operations. Only on this ground, the impugned notice deserves to be set aside. It is, therefore, not necessary 5 for us to go in to the factual controversy whether there is any violation committed by the petitioner of sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of the said Rules.
9. Accordingly, we pass the following order:
(i) The notice dated 17th August 2020 at Annexure-A is hereby quashed and set aside.
(ii) This order will not prevent the State Government from exercising appropriate powers under the said Rules, in accordance with law.
(iii) We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the question whether the petitioner has committed violation of sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of the said Rules.
(iv) The petition is disposed of, accordingly.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE RD