Karnataka High Court
Sri. Mohammed Sadiq vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 May, 2013
Bench: Chief Justice, B.V.Nagarathna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. D.H.WAGHELA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
W.P.No.21105/2013(GM-MM-S)
BETWEEN:
SRI. MOHAMMED SADIQ,
S/O U.ABDUL SATTAR,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
PROPRIETOR,
M/S SAI INDUSTRIES,
SY NO.185/1 & 185/2,
NANDALIKE VILLAGE,
KARKALA TALUK-574 101,
UDUPI DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY, ADV.)
AND:
1.THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY,
KANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560001,
BY ITS DIRECTOR.
2.THE KARNATAKA STATE
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
PARISARA BHAVAN 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR,
NO.49, CHURCH STREET,
BANGALORE-560001,
BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
3.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI-576101.
4.THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
MESOM ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY,
2
UDUPI DIVISION,
UDUPI DISTRICT-576101. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: R.G.KOLLE, AGA FOR R1 & R3, SRI.D.NAGARAJ, ADV.
FOR R2, SRI.N.K.GUPTA, ADV. FOR R4)
*****
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 28.8.2012 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2
VIDE ANNEXURE-C.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Sri R.G.Kolle, learned AGA takes notice for Respondent Nos.1 and 3, Sri D.Nagaraj, learned counsel takes notice for Respondent No.2 and Sri N.K.Gupta, learned counsel takes notice for Respondent No.4.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the closure order dated 28/08/2012 (Annexure "C") issued by the second respondent. The petitioner has also made a representation for grant of licence to petitioner's stone crushing unit in the safer zone and to permit the petitioner to continue the stone crushing unit in the present location till such time the application is considered. 3
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he has a stone crusher unit at Sy.Nos.185/1 and 185/2 of Nandalike village, Karkala Taluk, Udupi District. That pursuant to the directions of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Obayya Pujari, safer zones for location of stone crushing units have to be notified. That by notification dated 12/10/2012 respondent No.3 has declared safer zone in D.K.District. That the petitioner has made an application for grant of licence to the stone crushing unit in the safer zone but the said licence has not yet been granted. Instead, by the impugned order at Annexure "C", the stone crusher unit in the present case has been closed. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner is that on the one hand the allotments in the safer zones have not been made by the respondent - authorities and on the other hand he is not able to pursue stone crushing activity in the existing location, as a result, his business has come to a standstill.
4. Having regard to the prayers made in the writ petition, we are of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of 4 in terms of the orders passed in the earlier writ petitions in W.P.Nos.40894-956/2012 and W.P.No.11543/2013. The first of the writ petitions pertain to Shimoga District, in which, safer zones have been identified as in the instant case.
5. In terms of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 ("Act", for short), the applications have to be considered within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application by the Licencing Authority. On grant of a licence by the Licencing Authority as per sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act, sub-section (4) of Section 3 provides that the existing stone crusher unit shall shift to the safer zones within six months.
6. In fact, Section 3 of the Act which prescribes the time frame is extracted for felicity of reference:-
"3. Stone crushers to obtain license:- (1) No person shall carry on the business of stone crushing in the State except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a license issued under this Act.5
(2) Any person who is carrying on the business of stone crusher on the date of commencement of this Act with a license issued by any authority shall apply to the Licencing Authority for a license under section 4 of the Act within three months from the date of declaration of safer zone under section 6.
(3) On receipt of the application made under sub-section (2), the existing stone crusher units may be allowed to function till the grant or refusal of the license under the provisions of this Act or till three months from the date of receipt of application within which time the licensing authority shall dispose of such application after due verification of the location and fulfillment of other conditions of licence.
(4) On grant of licence under sub-section (3), the existing stone crushers shall be shifted to the safer zone within six months."
7. The purpose of the said section is to ban all stone crushing units in the State, except those which carry on the business of stone crushing as per the terms and conditions of the licence issued under the Act. Section 4 speaks about the application for licence, Section 5 says 6 that the term of licene is for a period of three years and may be renewed for a further period of three years, subject to fulfillment of conditions laid down under the Act or the Rules made there under. The explanation states that where a licence has been granted in the middle of a year, for the purpose of computing the term of licence, the remaining part of the year shall be deemed to be a year.
8. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 states that if any person is carrying on the business of stone crusher on the date of commencement of this Act with a licence issued by any authority shall apply to the Licencing Authority for a licence under Section 4 of the Act within three months from the date of declaration of safer zone under Section 6. So, within a period of three months the application would have to be made. Three months time is granted to consider the said application.
9. In the circumstances, the respondent - authorities are directed to consider the petitioner's application for grant of licence within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and pass necessary 7 orders thereon. Till then, no permission can be granted to the petitioner to carry on his stone crushing activity in the present location.
10. The writ petition is accordingly, disposed of. In case, the petitioner has any other grievance, he is at liberty to file a fresh writ petition.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE *mvs Index: Y/N