Karnataka High Court
Balakrishna Gopal Godse vs State Of Karnataka on 23 November, 2022
Author: Prasanna B. Varale
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.12954 OF 2022 (GM-MMS)
BETWEEN:
BALAKRISHNA GOPAL GODSE
S/O GOPAL GODSE
NO.184/12, SWAMY VIVEKANAND NAGAR
TILAKWADI
BELGAUM - 590 006
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. D.L.N. RAO, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. ANIRUDH ANAND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE -560001
2. DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
BY ITS DIRECTOR
APMC ROAD
SANGAMESHWAR NAGAR
BELGAUM - 590 010
W.P.No.12954/2022
2
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
APMC ROAD
SANGAMESHWAR NAGAR
BELGAUM - 590 010
4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
SANGOLLIRAYANNA ROAD
BELGAUM - 591307
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND
SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED LETTER OF THE THIRD
RESPONDENT BEARING NO.GABHOOLI UNI BEVI MARALU
2022-23/1786 DATED 24/05/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND
ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING
THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO ALLOCATE AN
ALTERNATE SAND BLOCK FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS,
IN TERMS OF THE DECISION OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
DATED 26/05/1998 IN TAM TAM PEDDA GURUVA REDDY V
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS (WP NOS.
27179/96, 27462 AND 63/96) AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, ASHOK S. KINAGI J., MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for writ of certiorari and set aside the impugned letter of respondent No.3 dated 24.05.2022, vide Annexure- F and also sought for a mandamus directing the W.P.No.12954/2022 3 respondents/authorities to allocate an alternate sand block for a period of 5 years in terms of the decision of this court dated 26.05.1998, passed in W.P.Nos.27179/1996, 27462-63/1996, between TAM TAM PEDDA GURUVA REDDY VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this writ petition are as under:
Respondent No.4 has issued a tender notification dated 17.01.2017, for disposal of ordinary sand on tender cum auction basis over an extent of 8 acres in Malkankoppa Block, Bailhongal Taluk, Belagavi District, adjacent to Sy.Nos.72, 73, 76, 77 and 81 of Mallaprabha River bed. Pursuant to the said notification, the petitioner visited the site along with the respondent's officials to inspect the said area before making his bid and it was found that the said area was submerged in water. The petitioner has participated in the tender cum auction. The petitioner W.P.No.12954/2022 4 obtained approval of his quarrying plan and environmental clearance in pursuance of quarrying lease. The petitioner was selected as a successful bidder. Thereafter quarrying lease deed was executed in favour of the petitioner on 19.06.2017, for a period of 5 years. The petitioner visited the site for excavation immediately after the execution of the lease deed and was surprised to see that his lease area was completely in water. On 08.06.2020, the petitioner wrote a letter addressed to respondent No.3 seeking for extension of his lease by an year as he was not able to excavate owing to the lease area being submerged because of heavy rainfall. On 16.05.2022, when water level did not recede even towards the end of his lease period, the petitioner requested for extension/renewal of lease as he was not able to quarry the mineral during the lease period. The request of the petitioner for extension/ renewal was rejected by the respondent vide order dated 24.05.2022. Hence the petitioner aggrieved by W.P.No.12954/2022 5 the impugned letter of respondent No.3 dated 24.05.2022, has filed this writ petition.
3. Respondents filed statement of objections contending that there is no provision for extension/ renewal of lease after the expiry of lease period. It is further contended that the petitioner did not raise any objection from the date of execution of the lease deed till 16.05.2022. It is further contended that the sand quarry was conducted by the petitioner and as per the records maintained in the office, the production and despatch quantity for the lease period is mentioned in para-8 of the statement of objections. It is further contended that during 5 years of lease period of the petitioner, the quantity of sand production and despatch was 5800 metric ton and 1933 metric ton, respectively and the said quarrying activity is in violation of the condition stipulated in Clause (iv) of Rule 31W of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Amended Rules, 2016 ('the Amended Rules of 2016' W.P.No.12954/2022 6 for short). Hence on these grounds prays to dismiss the writ petition.
4. Heard Sri. D.L.N.Rao, Senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri.S.S.Mahendra, Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
5. Sri. D.L.N.Rao, learned Senior counsel submits that the petitioner was the highest bidder and his bid was accepted and petitioner was unable to quarry due to submersion of area (except for a small quantity). He submits that the Karnataka Neeravari Nigam issued a reply to the petitioner on 26.05.2022, contending that the land in Sy.Nos.72, 73 are partially coming under full reservoir level of Mallaprabha dam and lands in Sy.Nos.76, 77 and 81 of Malkankoppa Village are fully coming under full reservoir level of Mallaprabha dam of Naviluteertha, Saundatti Taluk, Belagavi District. He submits that the respondents have not complied with the provisions of the KMMC Rules and he further submits that the petitioner came W.P.No.12954/2022 7 to know that the notified area is not suitable for sand mining activities and he submits that the petitioner pleaded for an alternate area for sand mining. He submits that the said application was rejected by invoking Rule 31R(21) of the Amended Rules of 2016 by the respondent. He submits that the said Rule comes under Chapter IV-B and Chapter IV-B is substituted as per Annexure-R1 produced by the State along with the statement of objections. He submits that Rule 31R(21) of the Amended Rules of 2016 was deleted by virtue of Annexure-R1. He further submits that no reasons have been assigned by respondent No.3 in the impugned order. Hence he submits that respondent No.3 has committed an error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. Hence on these grounds he prays to allow the writ petition.
6. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the petitioner after visiting the W.P.No.12954/2022 8 notified site along with the respondent officials in the month of January 2017 participated in the tender cum auction process and further the petitioner was the successful bidder and quarry lease was granted for a period of 5 years from 19.06.2017 for the disposal of sand block. He further submits that during the lease period the quantity of sand production and despatch was 5800 metric ton and 1933 metric ton, respectively, which is in violation of the condition stipulated in clause (iv) of Rule 31W of the Amended Rules of 2016. He further submits that sub-rule 21 of Rule 31R of the Amended Rules of 2016, contemplates that the expired lease cannot be extended or renewed and he further submits that there is no provision under the Rules to grant a new lease to the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner has undertaken quarrying activities since from the date of execution of the quarrying lease till 16.05.2022. At the fag end of the lease period, the petitioner has submitted an application for extension/ W.P.No.12954/2022 9 renewal of lease. He submits that the petitioner has not raised any objections as contended in the writ petition. He further submits that Sub-rule 21 of Rule 31R of the Amended Rules of 2016 was given retrospective effect i.e., with effect from 5th day of May 2020. He further submits that the petitioner committed breach of conditions. He also submits that as per the tender cum auction document for disposal of river sand blocks, the period of lease is only 5 years and no extension on any count. He submits that the respondent No.3 was justified in passing the impugned order. Hence prays to dismiss the writ petition.
7. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
8. It is not in dispute that the respondent issued an auction notification dated 17.01.2017. In pursuance to the said notification, the petitioner visited the site along with the respondents' officials to W.P.No.12954/2022 10 inspect the said area before making his bid and it was found that the said area was submerged in water. The petitioner participated in the tender cum auction held in the month of January 2017 and was selected as a successful bidder. As per the conditions in the tender cum auction document, clause No.13 provides period of quarrying lease is 5 years and no extension on any count. The said condition was accepted by the petitioner and accordingly, quarrying lease deed was executed on 19.06.2017, in favour of the petitioner for a period of 5 years. The petitioner has carried out the quarrying activities in the notified area for a period of 5 years and the said quarrying lease period was expired on 18.06.2022, and the sand quarry conducted by the petitioner is verified as per the records maintained in the office and the production and despatch quantity for the lease period is mentioned below:
W.P.No.12954/202211
Year Production Despatch
(in Metric Ton) (in Metric Ton)
2017-18 NIL NIL
2018-19 5000 422
2019-20 500 1200
2020-21 300 211
2021-22 NIL 100
The petitioner has conducted sand mining
activities during the lease period. The petitioner did not raise any objections in regard to the notified area falls under full reservoir level, since from 2017 i.e., from the date of execution of quarrying lease till 16.05.2022 i.e., one month before the expiry of quarrying lease period. On 16.05.2022, the petitioner addressed a letter to the respondent requesting for renewal of sand block or to grant a new sand block in Mallaprabha river on the ground that the notified area falls under the full reservoir level. The respondent No.3 issued the impugned endorsement contending that the petitioner has already carried out sand mining activities during the lease period and the sand quarrying activities carried out by the petitioner is in W.P.No.12954/2022 12 violation of conditions stipulated in Clause (iv) of Rule 31-W of the Amended Rules of 2016.
9. The State Government amended KMMC Rules, 1994 vide notification published in the official gazette of Karnataka dated 01.12.2021. The said Amended Rules are called as "The Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amended) Rules, 2021" and it shall come into force w.e.f. 05.05.2020. From the perusal of the Amended Rules of 2021 in Chapter-IVB of Rule 31-R to 31-ZB-A and entries relating thereto shall be substituted by the new Rule 31-R, etc., as such, the submission of the petitioner is that sub-rule 21 of Rule 31-R that was existed prior to amendment of 2021 was not in existence at the time of passing the impugned endorsement dated 24.05.2022. There is no provision under the law for allotment of an alternative land or to grant a new lease. Rule 31-X of the Amended Rules of 2021, provides for transitory W.P.No.12954/2022 13 provision for auction sand blocks which is reproduced here as under:
"31-X. Transitory Provisions for auctioned sand blocks. - The quarry lease which has been granted through tender cum auction, as per Rules existed before the commencement of the Karnataka Minor Minerals Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2021, may be continued till the expiry of such lease period, except in those cases wherein the State Government, in public interest, decides otherwise. The manner of procurement and distributions provisions existed before the said amendment shall continue to apply in respect of existing lease holders."
10. From the perusal of Rule 31-X, it is evident that sub-rule (21) of Rule 31-R is saved by transitory provision which clearly contemplates that the quarry lease which was granted through tender cum auction as per the Rules existed before the commencement of Amended Rules of 2021 may be continued till the expiry of such period. In the present case, W.P.No.12954/2022 14 admittedly, the lease period expired on 18.06.2022. After the expiry of lease period, respondent No.3 has no power to extend the lease period. The respondent No.3 after considering the entire material on record and also considering the Rules, has rightly passed the impugned order. The petitioner has not pointed out any error in the impugned endorsement issued by respondent No.3. The impugned endorsement issued by respondent No.3 is in accordance with law. We do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, we decline to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE RD