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 2, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Shradhandrananda Stone Crusher vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 August, 2018

Bench: Chief Justice, R Devdas

                             1

                                          W.P.No.13926/2016


   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2018

                         PRESENT

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE

                            AND

               HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.DEVDAS

           WRIT PETITION NO.13926 /2016 (GM-MM-S)

  BETWEEN:

  M/S. SHRADHANDRANANDA STONE CRUSHER
  REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
  SURESH B. PATIL (GOUDAR)
  AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, AT POST: NARENOOR
  BADAMI TALUKA, PIN:587103
  BAGALKOT DISTRICT
                                           ... PETITIONER

  (BY SRI R.G. KOLLE, ADVOCATE)

  AND:

  1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
         REPRESENTED BY ITS
         CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
         VIDHANA SOUDHA
         BENGALURU-560001

  2.     THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
         DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES
         GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
         VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001

  3.     THE CHAIRMAN &
         DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
         THE DISTRICT STONE CRUSHERS
                            2

                                          W.P.No.13926/2016


     LICENSING AND REGULATION AUTHORITY
     BAGALKOT DISTRICT, BAGALKOT-587103

4.   THE MEMBER SECRETARY &
     DEPUTY DIRECTOR
     THE DISTRICT STONE CRUSHERS
     LICENSING & REGULATION AUTHORITY
     DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY
     NO.63/A, BRINDAVAN SECTOR
     NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT
     BAGALKOT-587102

5.   THE ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER
     KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION
     CONTROL BOARD, SECTOR NO.7
     BYPASS ROAD, NAVANAGAR
     BAGALKOT-587102
                                     ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP FOR R-1 TO 4)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE FINAL NOTICE DATED 10.02.2016
ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 -DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
DEMANDING RS. 2,26,200/- BEING FIVE TIMES THE NORMAL
ROYALTY PAYABLE AT RS. 60/- PER METRIC TON FOR
HAVING STORED NEARLY 754 MT OF PROCESSED MINERAL
(STONE CRUSHED MATERIAL) IN THE LICENSED PREMISES
OF STONE CRUSHER UNIT BEARING LICENSE NO.09/2013
ISSUED IN FORM-C IN SY.NO.39/1A, AREA 01-00-00 (A-G-A) OF
HANUMANERI VILLAGE IN BADAMI TALUK, BAGALKOT
DISTRICT, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                3

                                              W.P.No.13926/2016




                           ORDER

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the similar nature petitions, including W.P.No.13927/2016, have been considered and disposed of by this Court. The order dated 01.06.2017 in the said writ petition has been placed before us for perusal, that reads as under:

"By filling this writ petition, the final notice dated February 10, 2016, has been impugned.

2. It is alleged that unauthorisedly building stone material are stocked in the crusher unit of the writ petitioner.

3. The writ petitioner submitted a representation raising the jurisdiction of the Deputy Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Bagalkot, to issue the notice and, also, submitted that he has not stocked the building stone material, unauthorisedly.

4. The representation was considered, but, it was rejected with the finding 'is not proper'. There is no reason in support of the order. An order without reason has no meaning.

5. Therefore, we set aside the final notice dated February 10, 2016, and direct the Deputy Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Bagalkot, to consider the representation of the writ petitioner afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the 4 W.P.No.13926/2016 writ petitioner or his representative. He shall, also, consider as to whether he has the jurisdiction over the matter or not.

6. The writ petition stands disposed of.

7. There will be no order as to costs."

Learned HCGP appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 also does not dispute the position that the subject matter of this petition stands covered by the order aforesaid.

In view of the above, this petition also stands disposed of in the same terms and with the same directions.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-

JUDGE bkv