M/S Vsl Mining Company Pvt Ltd vs State Of Karnataka on 4 January, 2011

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Vsl Mining Company Pvt Ltd vs State Of Karnataka on 4 January, 2011

Bench: A.S.Bopanna

.1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAIKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 4"' day of January, 201 1
PRESENT

me HON'BLE MR.J.s.K1~1eHAR, CHIEF  " 

AND _ C  
THE HONBLE MR.JUS'I'I_CE A.S.B'O'PAl\l{€A""   
we No.41o83/2o1o_{GM§MM--:s;._'  

BETWEEN :

1. M/ S VSL Mining Company Ltd '-
A Company Registered under~the.._
Companies Act, E9536 C V V   
Represented by its"GPA H_ol;der " It  I _
Sri.lVl.Pooba1an S/O l\'!._i\/I1,'1tltusrWan1§,f: _ 
14th VVard;"A_sh0ls:a V  
Sandur,;*'Bel5lary D.ist:'iet  A '  V. 

_ .."  _     .  Petitioner
(By Sri L M Ctiideanandayya, 'Adx:_,)'-,5 

AND: 

1. State of Karnataka._  
Represented its VS'eeret.ary to
The Depa1ttnent'*of Industries and
4; Cor.nmeree_(SSI, Textiles And Mines)
" '~Vikas.a Soudl"1a;" 'V

'V " « _  Banga.1"ore--560001

  

.  Department. of Mines and Geology
 NoL49o.«-*Khanija Bhavan,
Race Course Road,

 AA  Ba;iga1ore~56000l.

   ...lA'l"i'he Deputy Director (Mines)

Department Of Mines And Geology
Hospet, Bellary District
 Respondents
(By Sri R.G. Kolle, AGA for respondents]

This W1-it Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to call for records which
ultimately resulted in passing the tmptzgned order An'n.eXure«
A dated 1.3.8.2010 passed by the Est. respondent, and the
order of the 3rd respondent vide Anr1exure«B dated



J.S.KI-IEHAR, C.J. (Oral) :

 

on 17.12.2oi.io; 5fi:.~;*c -  I

2

23/25.11.2010, cancelling the stockyard permission given to
the petitioner and etc,

This Writ Petition coming on for further consideération

this day, Chief Justice made the following:

ORDER

Notice to the respondents.Aa2__ A Sri.R.G.Ko11e, learned?" . Crotrei'r_in'2erit eeeejreekedvocate V accepts notice on be,ha.1_f of.re'spondVe'nts.

2. The folio"/in:g"o'1'-dierv by this Court, "Learned coV_t1vVnse'i .for"th.e'vpetitioner has invited our :atten'ti.ofn to3":thei1n_pugned order dated 25.11.2010 'fAnneXure§'B');t .cA'i'-perusal of the impugned order reveals, that..ejthe"S_toc"£{-yard registration granted to the'pet1tioner..has;' been cancelled on account of _.the fact', that the petitioner is neither a mining lease ho1d--err_1_or he has a processing unit. 'Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks an 'adjo.urn~:n,vent, so as to enable him to place on the .i~ii'recora of this Court, material to demonstrate, that petitioner is either a mining lease holder or has an existing processing unit.

Prayer is alioweci. Further rnateriai. if so frequired, be piaeed on the record of this case by moving a miscellaneous writ: appitcation. 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 iearned Counsel for petitioner, to enable him to place further 4 petitioner to file a fresh writ petition on the same cause of action, with the aforesaid details and particulars.

5. The instant Writ petition is disposed i" A aforesaid terms.

m.v* Index: Y/ N

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court