Karnataka High Court
Venkategowda S/O. Timmegowda vs State Of Karnataka Rep By Its Chief Secy on 23 November, 2009
Author: B.V.Nagarathna
Bench: B.V.Nagarathna
I
-1-
IN T HE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALO__RE
DA'I'I:1D THIS TI»-IE 23% DAY OF NOVEMBER. .
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICExr;vGoAPA':;Af}bi¢I[§A'_'_;_ V
AND
THE HONBLE MRs.JUS_T--LcE BA.";'.NA_QAbRA';T HNA
w.p. No.9146-9162'/£3009'IGMQMM./As)_ §
BETWEEN:
VENKATE1G.0WDA -". jj '
s/0. 'I'1lV1Ml';G-OWDA _, _
AGED ABOLYF _70_Y?%3AR_S
KAMALA :: '
W/Q.SWAM'Y:;(}Q\»Vi§A_ ' A' ~
.AGED'A.gfQU':'v'2s YEARS .
1w{A_1.I¥': .GO'\vD'A{ j V .. _
S / 0V._BENDI§=GOW'DA"*--
AG ED .AB0{J'1"- _7 6 YEA RS
K V sIDDARAMHE_A(1owDA
'S%O.KAI,ENKE GOWDA
AGE.D.A'B_OU'f 67' YEARS
_ ¢JKEié;ri~§%yE: <§o*gvDA
S /O.i'CFjUSHNE GOWDA
A AGEDVABOU1' 50 YEARS
r§«mJaE GOWDA
. S/OKALE GOWDA
"AGEJD ABOUT 40 YEARS
CHIKKE GOWDA
S/ OTHAMME GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
KAI.AMi\/EA
W/ C). ERAIAH
AG ED AEBOUT 40 YEARS
IO
11
12
13
14
15
16
A ALI. THE PE'1"I'I'"1ONERS ARE
" R/OVADDARA HALLI
VILLAGE K I3E'I'I'A HALL! POST.
VENKATESH
S / O. KULLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
SI-HVAIAH
S/O. KULLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
V K MANJU
S/OKALASAIAH
AGED ABOUT21 YEARS; _
NARASAIAH
S/O. CHELUVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55y1aARs
MAHADEVA
S/OLAKSHVMAJAH H
AGED ABOUT30
s/0_V'.rEN_KAf1A NA} '
AGED 'ABOEEI 33 __
P RAB 3'A:A1K_' ' - __
S';/_O;'E\/IU'KI_}?'\E~I)"/X. " _
AGEZ)' ABOUT 25 vs-A_Rs;"
_ --SURE'S}'I._:NAIE{'
s/QRAMA NAJK V
Ag'?-VEDA. ABOUT YEARS
~ TAP'A1§VA<rf1AMMA
Aw!/o.,;:;21js:~--iNA NAIK
AGED'AB'OU'I' 38 YEARS
' ;<'I3VE*.I*i'AHA1,L1 GRAMA
PA}'éCHAYA'F MEMBER
PAN' DAVAPU RA TALU K
MANDYA DlSTRIC'I' -- 57'} 435
(By Sri Ravi Varma Kumar. Sr. Counsel for
. PEITITIONERS
M/s. Ravi Varma Kumar Asst:-3', Adm.)
/5;.
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VI 1) HANASOU D HA.
BAN GALO RE- I
THE JOINT DIRECTOR
IVHNES & GEOLOGY
NO. 187. I1'I'H MAIN ~
SARASV\«'A'I'I-II PURAM
IVEYSO RE 570009
SENIOR GEOLOGIST
MENES 81 GEOLOGY
MANDYA 571 432
THE THASILDAR V ;
PANDAVAPURA TALUK_1' '
MANDYA 5701. 43:;
K B13'r1'AI~IAItL-E' GRAMA PAN 'c:1.;:{'A5.2A<:'......7
REP BY ms :3_£;_CRE.f_1"ARYz
PA1vDAV2é.PU'ié;é."<rALU'K0
1:3/IANDYA7DViSafI""57 1A35___ .
M'/s'. sH1vA_d11§LAs-s§jc1A'1'Es
NO.ESl_7.j r?1Rs'_1' I+'1.oQr;<-
V NEW KAN*1ARAJ URS' ROAD.
NEAR VIJAYA BANK.
' KLIVE,MPU NAGAR'
M'.fsQRE,_--23
. RESPONDENTS
D Vijayakumar. AGA for R1-R4;
Sri N R Girish, Adv. for R5:
' L M Chidanandayya. Adv, for R6]
V G _ W..r2f1'1' PE'1'ITi()NS 1211.30 UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF
"«E.O'_'iTI%I:}:"#"gC0NS'l'I'FU'FION OE' 1NI:a:A PRAYING TO QUASH THE
. '1':y:i>ié!(;NED QUARRING LEASE) DEED BEARING NQ683 ANNEXA
V. DT. 29.7.04 EXECLETED BY THE 3RD RESPONDEZNT IN
FAVOUR OF 6TH RESPONDENT.
These writ. pemions Comirlg on for diCt3.t',ing Orders. on
this day, NAGARATHNA. J, made {he i'<)§§()w1'r1g.I{:A 52)
I
9/':-
-4-
ORDER
Though the matters were posted for COI1Sld€I'El'['3;':C')'fi,.Oi' Misc. W. 10239 of 2009 for temporary inj'unct.ion~;----Wi»th_i' consent of counsel on both sides. the writ.rpet~i.tion1s haye~ _ been heard finally and disposed of can '7
2. These writ petitions alrelfiled thy waysoii"a--...ptiblic 2 L' interest litigation by Village, Pandavapura Taluk. seelfziiig a two fold prayer i.e., deeds at Annexures--__A~ of'; the order dated
27. l2.2v_QQ'8V. produced at Annext1--re~'E: 7.l.2009 Passed by the third respondent Vprod.né:ed_.'*at, Annexure~F. " to"'ti"1'eV petitioners, they are the permanent oVf..t::\?addai~aha1li Village. Pandavapura Taluk, M'andyav_ and are eaking out their livelihood by agriculture: that Sy. No.80 of Vaddarahalli Village which '*l:V'_rnes;sures about 129 acres 24 guntas was originally gomal iand meant for Cattle grazing and that out of the said extent. 61.33 guntas was handed over to the forest department for :% development': of sociai forestry. /, -10- adversely impacted: that innumerable representations for cancellation of the lease were made by the \~'illagers""i--o the Talisildar and subsequently the Tahsildar withdyrelwilylltlailea.lno objection certificate'. Similarly. the Gram Panclvijayat also withdrawn the licence. Such oi°de'i-s of'lwithrli'awals'--hayc not been challenged and the licenycingil aut,l1ori'ty Senior Geologist also car1celle_d"~~.1,he lease dated' 27.11.2008 which was _,.C.l'1all€l'¢1»g'€Cl':lFl la»revision-petition. but the Villagers were not l1e'a1'd'ir'it._the revision' proceedings and neither has tlierebeen 'l"dE1€.I"€'1',1:CQ rnade to the objections raised by the piibli_c.'_on' t.lfle_ Sq-uai?i*yi--rig operations.
16. He has 'draw-.'ri:1..ociir"attention to various annexures in support oi'l'i'~':'_ly'1leiv abo_ve¥.sub:missions and has said that the &_ SiXl_h'3'«:F6S;i3endent'h«a.s...n«ot responded to the Senior Geologists notice to"it<re:ga_1'ding the licence issued under the Indian EiiblolsivesSkftcltrciit He has also referred to two unreported 'V decislionsinlsupport of his submissions. S:-Per contra, counsel for sixth respondent has stated the Tahsildar gave a report that quarrying operations would be conducted in barren land and thereafter a notification was issued and subsequently the lease deed was executed: that there have been no coni1pl.ain1.s from the year It M', "W
-11."
2004 till the latter half of the year 2008. but it is only a motivated writ petition which has been filed through the villagers in order to destroy the business of the.f"--«si}:th respondent in which about. Rs. 11 crores has ' after borrowing from financial insti.tution_s.Wl"
stated that the blasting operations iisidlone~.on.ly thrice in a Week and for 20~25"rI}inute~s only thatul' since the local MLA's brothery_i_slial_sov.carryingvpniiluariying business, this writ peti--t'.i:onA tiled against the sixth respondent. V I~ie:.h;ic:;.. are more than 90 when there has been the said quarries, the sixth i-espoiiderttlliasl out with an oblique motive. He has irefeyrreda to two reports of National institute of Rock lP~EiRM} tomstate that the ground vibrations are not from the quarry. He has also drawn our attentiovn the cornmunication between the Tahsildar, l"~Senior' Qeologist and the Deputy Commissioner who has also to NIRM. lie has stated that. the quarry has given efnployrnent to more than 200 people and that any independent investigation agency may be appointed with regard to the damage caused to the houses in Vaddarahalli village and depending upon the said report. the sixth y/'/' .,.,«:
-12_ respondent is ready to pay compensation. He has also brought to our notice circular dated 24.2.1999 quarrying lease in the land not used for pasturage.olo"alld V' granted but there was a public interest. 4litigat,io4n"ichallenging the said circular which resulted in Bench of this court and the.re'aftier the saidv.Vcir_c'ula1i':was"d withdrawn and the sarne wasV_.chlal.1ei1ged petition and the learned single withdrawal of the circular. He hasaalso dirawnionr' at1._e11t:ion&"l:ol rule W» 8A of the rules and the %:_irc5i;in1stances_Vu11_dei wiiich it is applicable.
18. It."'"is«._aI;S0iifksubnzitted counsel for sixth respoiident operations has provided employi11enlit«<.,to'v the vlillagers and it is also stated that an «_ indfsfieiideiwt ageAn'ey...may be appointed to submit a report on the"qouarryiriggoperations and if on account of the blasting openratioiisfijiftpthere has been any damage caused to the 'V houses andllouildings, then compensation would be paid for l f the' said damage.
pp Additional Government. Advocate drew our attention to the fact that the reference made to the Deputy Controller of Explosives and his report is awaited and that the quarrying /E/4.
«Kid _ 33 _ operations is causing damage to the houses in the viliage in question.
20. In reply. learned senior counsel on petitioners refuted the fact that there has bee_n]_'no b made till mid 2008. He h.as stated[:thabt:Ath:ereT have petitions which have been fi1ed_objec't--iAng--to the-tiqtjlvarryingdd' the vicinity of the village in quejs't.ijo:*; and been no whisper before any to the local MLA setting' up the first time that such a su*b1:ii£i_ssion=A,_has' this court.
21. submissions regarding environrnental of the operation with the quarry. in qu.es.tion.7' drawn our attention to Ruie 97 of the Revenue Rules and stated that there has been nodorzcier with regard to the reduction of the pasturage . made in the instant case and that Rule 97 read with Section ' i"of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act are appiicable which * -wnandate a statutory order and that in the instant case no € such order has been made. /4- -14-
23. Having heard counsel on both sides. the following points arise for our consideration:
i. Whether the lease granted in favour oii the=l_lfs..i§é:t--h___ _ respondent ought to be quashed in viewthe 11911;"
compliance of sections 71. 72._read)}vitl1. s'ectior1V:'68'=efA the Karnataka Land Reveriue Act:.,_ H364 aridf_i?:u_le of the said Rules'?
ii. Whether grant of llease 'b.y7t:l1e_second, respondent in favour of the -sixth respondenfphas ";est.1lted in adverse environnientaillgpirripact'-.calling for interlerence in the rrnatter?' H
24. lt isulnot. in Vdisputeiptthat the licences issued in respect oi' 'tfitif quarries "i~'n,Vque.stior1 is in gomal lands. Under the 'circui11sta.nee'S*.v__the procedure for issuance of licences in have to be complied with by the auth'oritie.s.concerned. In this context. it would be relevant it toriadverlt. to the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue "x1964 as well as the Rules made thereunder as also the it Wfiules 8[bI, 9. 11 and 12 of the KMMC rules.
25. Sections 71 and 72 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, i964 and circular dated 24.2.1999 issued by the State :
_ 15 -
Government. came up for consideration before the full Bench of this court in the case of 'D C RAMESH AND OTHERS vs. STATE or KARNATAKA AND OTHERS' 2003 KAR 3789. The circular was also considevredvvlppvi' learned single Judge of this court in thee VENKATESHWARA HILL CRUsH1.éH_s"--.g_iND THE STATE or KARNATAIM-v--.é:trD meme» ;:ep¢it¢e in V 2008[3] KCCR 1329]. V _ p
28. Section 71 of the"'--Ka1'natla:'+§:'a }':Jéll':i€Z1AA"i?_€Vt'3l'lt1€ Act deals with land that may purpose and when assigne"dl5fsh_all.Vnot.be__ot_heiwise used without sanction of the Deputy Conir:ni.ssioi.1'e-«:"§' While section 72 deals with i"egulAat.i.on olttse'ot"pastu.rage. In the case of 'D C RAMESH '' V' {O"I"HE1zS us."s"TATE 01:' KARNATAKA AND OTHERS' e_repe'l%teei'-Le ritzzvizoos KAR 3789, the Full Bench held that a reading V.ot'T:seetion 71 makes it clear that the Deputy V'-».Con1m'issi~oner has power to set apart lands belonging to the St:atefC':overnment which are not in lawful occupation for free pétstu.rage or for forest reserves or for any other public:
purpose and the said lands set apart cannot be used otherwise without the sanction of the Deputy Commissioner. Section 72 regttlales use of pasturage only by the villagers to 5;
/"/"
-16- which the lands are assigned by the rules and orders_i.s_sued by the State Government and in case of any (ifi':3:}v3.'i;',:.'(_."f;'._..t'i.'.1A'€ decision of the Deputy Commissioner is final. 27'. Further, while scrutinizing thertwoé decisviéonsérendered by the division Bench in the case OTHERS vs. STATE AND 0-fangs' A1.'<;'pQ1't'€V,fd'-ViIi':._ILeR' 2001" ' KAR 2363 and in the.caseVAiofu:"K AND OTHERS vs. STATE AND OTHERS' rendered in wpé :'\1'0v.__2s2fa5'/1 em 29.1 1.2000, which is a the circuiar dated 23'4."2'. that a circular or a Govei'nfr_1ei;it the same ei'fect of conveying guidelines it for considAe~rati.on. of an application for grant or A' renV_e'x'3*ata1: of qV'L1arr§iiig..i.i.e'ence according to the fact situation of 'eac'h. ecas_e*ir'1'«vaccordance with law and that the circular dated 2?%,.2';~i9Q9~.v-Vgaisviissued pursuant to the decision of the j Gove'i"nrneni:" to provide opportunity for quarrying in "..:'.pas1'.uArage land covered with large granite and hard rocks which circular was issued in modification of the earlier " Wci1'culars.
28. In the case of 'SR1 VENKATESHWARA HILL CRUSHERS AND ANOTHER Us. THE STATE OF ii.
//fw'
-17"
KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER' reported in 2008 [3] KCCR 1329], a learned single Judge of this court eonsidered_rtl_ie validity of the Circulars issued by the State prohibiting the grant or renewal of quarry iiiigomalll lands and held that only such of thosle.lgonialhlilyandlsu can no longer be classified asgonial lands on ;ie'eoun1 of the sanie being largely covered rocrianfland not fit as gornal land and on lanvdslx that the authorities could take AAst_e:l'ps_ granting of quarrying However, it does not eXpi'ess provisions of the coniers jurisdiction on the set apart the lands for free paste.-rage for ainygiveri village is in any way curtailed. decisions would have to be read in the 71 and 72 of the Karnataka Land Reyenue 'Act read with rule 9714] of the Karnataka Land Reuenuve Rules. Rule 9714} provides for free pasturage for the ratltle of each village and the same enables the Deputy it '""Corn1nissioner to reduce the pasturage below the prescribed limit if he is of the opinion that the area already set apart is much larger than what is really required and such rejection can only be aller Oblalllliig prior perinission of the l.')ivisional Z, .,.»/fly,'
-18"
Commissioner. The proviso to sub-rule [4] of rule 97 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules states that no V.-'.~'3'uCh permission is required where the rejection bel.olw."h"--the prescribed limit is for the purpose of [al dtstribL1~i'.ionVoihliiohtise V' sites to the siteless persons and 1b}Vgram.. of persons~.. belonging to scheduled caste and agricultural purposes who are«.__oi=dinarii§,r__ residerits"'of such "
village and {C1 regulationto LiVr1au.t'hoi'ized cultiv.at;j,.on under chapter--XlII-A. Therefore; contemplated under rule 9714] oi: Rules is mandatory not followed, the lease g.ranted'vJould3lnot in accordance with law.
30. Keeping , the aforesaid decisions and partiieula'rly '~pro_cedL1re contemplated under Rule 97 of ~th"e __Land Revenue Rules and on perusal of the rnaterial'o'_n._ record. we find that. there ha.s been no order passedhunder Rule 97 of the aforesaid rules while granting it perrnissiori for quarrying operations in the instant case. "thlough the Talisildar has given his no objection to the sixth it "resporident. AI1I1€3Xiii'€:-G is the RTC in respect of Sy. No.80 which shows that it is gomal land and is in the possession of the forest departnierit. and ihe same measures 67.38 acres out of which 61.31 acres is vvitlt the {crest department. The .«*"(.«'
32. a.fore;said_ exterrl _oflgo1rial land for the purpose of setting it in the ivristarit case. Also, there is no material forthcoming violation of the aforesaid provisions of law: -20-
application. Any other int:erpret"at.ion to mean that no notification is required jor the grant of-=__ virgin. quarry, would only lead to ttnreasonable.._ and arbitrary exercise of power attracting Artirsle. .i 14 of the Constitu.t'ion of India, and therejor'e"'the~ .. ;_.
same has to be discouraged. because itjwould be difficult for a person interested .
knowledge as to the availabilityrrofglandjorgrant _ of lease without any notif'it;ation,g ttniessi's_uCh<.__ interested person has links"-gwi--th" bureaucrats.» "
and has sources to C1(,'Cj_LtiI'e the 'sarne,.v~E9«:cept where the State propose applications on priority prescribed" under Ritle 12(t}{i) to {vi}. in__all other _circ'u.mstan"ces,H even where the select'ton~..of the appl.i'catfions_fall under 'all others' categoryvtattrocting Rtile._il2{I){uii}, the only reasonable option ii)ottld._-'bev--to _notify the area available for""ptr.blic" auction want of gttideiines"i.n"_'t:he Rulesto gioefprioriig among all others} Thegispower _conjer_rea.ttnder Rule 8~B of the F3ules'=h"as--V._to'"h'e_ excetfcisecl' with the close }:3'r'OXiFI1lll_j} to'fi.; "the--_ desiretiiiipttblic interest to augm.en't" triQi'e«reL'-enue to the State. "
"fheiiefore, it uias .ne'e._essa.ry that an order reducing the thefipurpose of quarry purposes had to be passed 'ij<:§§pi.1l}l'f'C'O¥I1l"niSSi0I'1€I' and which has not been done '"«__l"'tlj1at ihe...procedure prescribed under the KMMC Rules has lbeenfioiiowed in the instant, case.
'Under the circumstances, whiie answering point No.1, V we hold that the grant of licence in the instant. case is in ,/E:/..
to" constcier"*._titeu -21-
34. That apart.. the other aspect. of the matter. namely. point No.2 for consideration is with regard to the environmental hazard that has been caused by the qi.ia'a:ry~i.11g operations. It is not in dispute that the sixth resp_:oi'1'de'r;--i..__ha_S{' _ been using high explosives for mcarrying"'v--o.t:i*tblhilasptiriig operations. Annexure-L shows photogi*a.phsa..with*- re~gardrV:.tol the cracks and damage in the hkousese.ol*vadd.araVh.a_lli which according to the petitio11VersLis_VVon acc.oiint, oi? the said operations. There are.._:a-'.so7_lph§otog.raplis which show the drying up of the tank o'i'*~.thel..'jsettlernent of fine rock d.tiS't1'»E1i;iC.:'. saidptanllr. 'i'a'o.t..vt:)ei11g useful for drinking and agricultural ' * l
35. ,--As far ._as~viniri-ing and quarrying operations and ""Aentriron.ment«is coricerned. it is necessary to observe that Iniafiing:'o--perat.i_o'iis are inherently hazardous in nature and it not_onIy the natural resources. but also affects the iiving"7~the people around the mines. Further mining or "<d'_qtiar'ryi.ng activity close to township and villages have a tendency to degrade environment as it affects air. water, soil and impairs the quality of life of the inhabitants of the area and therefore. a greater responsibility is cast on the miners. In the context of having inirsing operations in the vicinity of ,/2».
_ 22 IV' towns and villages. a due diligence exercise of the quantum and degree of pollution and the impact that a mining rtctivity would have on the inhabitants surrounding a pml_r1ee.wo;t1ldV. have to be done at the outset before giving'l"-a:ny:p'_kind permission or grant viswa~vis ad miitin_g--, acti.vit«y_.V regulatory authorities have to act.__ with utlmostv, '~care'--~iln~_u ensuring compliance with th'e--.j}a.rious=.safegt;;ards§l"claims it and standards by entrepxjeneitrs'; to avoiddamagge to environment, natural resolu1'ces5.' ;'pe_op.lv'e'1s" -life, health and property.
36. In 'tl1§..$flVCTf5'1'lttj§'3;'€; relevance to refer to a decision of thel-.VApe2; Co"urt._p MEHTA vs. UNION or INDIA' reported' '"4016 wherein the concept of sustainable"deve.lopme_nt"'has been explained. in the eontext Zdeveloprnent ____ "activity wherein the principles of ~spustainvableidevelopment are applied and at the same time ,.1,;he__ is not degraded. According to the Apex Co~...i_rt, a. balance has to be struck in such matters. it is also releva.nt.:/tot note that if an activity is allowed to go ahead, 2 .. there may be irreparable damage to the environment and if it is stopped there may be irreparable damage to economic ml.}1t'€I'€Sl. in such cases. it is the protection of environment which should take precedence over economic interest yr/'~*"
- 23 _ according to t.he Apex Court. The precautionary principle accepted by the Apex Court in various dicta requires anticipatory action to be taken to prevent can be prevented even on a reasonable stispie-ion.and' t' not necessary that there should be 'diie<:t vhiarrrr t.o the environment.
37'. A mining lease holder tottvconiplir statutory provisions such as the--Enviro..nr11entt Protection Act. 1986 and the acts and control of pollution of aii*,4'_vv'a1_.er. ro'i+ésiVIi§ig}',i..;;is_w§11...;i;;"ihe rules framed under --so"-that alifiilossible precautions for the protecti--on'* of venviro.nri<ie4nti_:and'control of pollution is taken while corid.ucti.ng.aTniin.ing operation in an area. In M.C;.:MEHTA'SV'tcase_____reier'red to supra, the Apex Court has ~s:tat¢hd .,Vti1at_Lt'i--n__ majority of the eases, the environment cori'cer'nts ignored by the mining community in order to maii:'e quick". profits. The mining operators would cause disit;.urba"nce of l.and surfaeejdrainage pattern and iand use tbesidtes cause pollution probiems which wouid lead to " "-erivironrrierital problems of air. water and noise pollution and solid waste pol.l.utior1. Therefore. the Apex Court stiggested that short. term and long term action for restoration of E'.I1\-'iI'(")1'l1'E'l(:'.1'"it quality of the area should be zprepared ,/'77..
.,24_ separately. by the State Pollution Control Boards and Government Agencies for enforcement of the environryn-ental laws for the restoration of the environmental qualii..yd'o.f:'--t.he area. Monitoring programme should include ~frequen'eyl "
monitoring air quality. water quality-,' 'gro--i1ynd-l_4wate'r'-and n_o,ise.c level etc. As far as protection of water..resources--.in areas are concerned. it was suggested ti1.at'i.n o_rd"er"to draw "
water resources managernentyplalne.it*is esse11vti.alyA..i;§o assess the water quality of the of the Hydraulic Cycle i.e., stream} Noise arising out of or controlled by the lessee Aaitlfthyeinksource so to keep it within the permissi'Dle"limi"t.s.A' V' «_ 38v:»~'~i.'ifhe in1bValanc_e'__&which has been caused to ecology and 'f,!l'l'€_VCGI1St3€{i1L(;Z'I1l"' hazard to the healthy environment due to raining Vop'je--rat;_i.ons was taken note of by the Apex Court in theta" 'RURAL LITIGATION AND ENTITLEMENT DEHRADUN vs. STATE or U.P.' reported in AIR SC 652. in that case certain lessees of limestone it "quarry was directed to close down their operations permanently. The question as to how the lessees were to be comperisated for Closing the mines. was answered by stating that it was the price that has to be paid for protecting and /'Z'.
-25- safeguarding the right of the people to live in a healthy environment with minimal disturbance of ecological balance and without avoidable hazard to them and homes and agricultural lands and undue a_ft~ect'aiti.or1~.Vof.airs water and environment. At, the same titnfe, ldirect~iot'is-,,iWe.r.ef given to the State Governrnenit-._that iflessees»"barn/:§1'an;ted, then those whose business isfito be closed' should be accornrnodated. Concer'n"was_ aliso for the workmen who were likely tobe V
39. There; "ha§.z¢7».bt;eh f1'--:_i_:s'tanc'es.lV_'where the High Courts taking i:t_.h_e the Apex Court in the aforemventi*oi1edllvdéCision"have expressed opinion that where there is lindliscrin1in'ate,operation of mines, which have proved h'a.zardotis_to natural wealth and environment then uconrtsvhave no option but to intervene wherein even c-lohsureVoif"_'~mini'ng operation can also be ordered. Such a dechisionpwoiild be in line with and promote what is provided tinder articles 48-A and 5l--A(g) of the Constitution of India provide that the State as also the citizens are under it obligation to preserve. safeguard and improve the forest, flora. fauna. rivers and lakes and all other water resources of w a K' I"
li("3(3§3iI1g the ecological batance unal'l'ect:.edLi.ask whichLnot the cotintry. Fttrther preservation oi' the envirjnrnent tin; 29/» 2 -26- ei5'5- onlylgovernmenti. but also every citizen must undertake. It is a social obligation and a fundamental duty as enshririedeyin Article 51~A(g} of the Constitution. Therefore expi'o'it:atio:nii' mineral resources may be in the interest of ind--uVstrival=.grow1h"
of the country, yet, mines should not they disturb the ecology or aifect the._livelihoo*ldA.and condition of the people surroundi'ngx,f'the miriesl
40. There have been Apex Court and other High Cot;.rts.__in ivoflglered for total stoppage oi} :§--perlei_aie'1a..s5 in LITIGATION AND OF U.P.' reported in AIR Court'. directed total stoppage of mining op'e.1jati,ons._ lie: CEMENT LTD. vs. STATE or p_ U.1?;.{. rveportedx'i'11.Vl(19Q3) suppm sec 571, the Apex Court not 'perTnit_ the cement factory to be run in the valley where niilriingzloperations in relation to limestone quarries stood sltoppled. The only direction that was given was to aciconimodate the petitioner~factory at some other place. in QUARRY WORKS vs. STATE OF GUJARAT' it "reported in AIR 1987 SC .1073, the application seeking renewal oi' a lease after the enforcement of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 was disallowed. In 'INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVIROLEGAL ACTION vs. UNION OF Zée.
_ 31 W peak particle velocity of 5 min/ s is recommended as safe for the structures in Vadderahalli village.
44. In another report at AnneXure~R18 given by Dr--..___V R Sastry, Professor of Mining Engineering & Dean. Institute of Ecology. Karnataka, it is stated.-.4'tiia§t.:Vu.s'ei V' explosive energy to fragment therockygmassvélinfmiiiesr is associated with adverse side effects li}ie"g1'ou*n_d .vib1'ati*o.ns;:
air blast and fly rock. The vibrations'Vd.an1age " it to structures and annoyance to _re_sid_ents i1'1--.rieiAgiibour'ing areas in case the intensity is above. tliefthresliold values. Fly rock can cause deamageto'str'uctt:_res in t.ht{--./ieinity and may result in fatal accident, ifa.pi*oper care is not taken. in some cases, Ilyu"»i_fod(:k lp_1'oble'in._"_.'e'may lead to closure of quarry ope»1*a_tioris due '"to_danf1age involved. In the context of sixth »respondent,o§;.erating the granite quarry for the supply of <:ruslied"'_stoi1,e"V material for construction activities in Pari4davaApdi"a Taluk is concerned, it is stated that the cycie of operations in the quarry consists of drilling, blasting, Riaoadirig, transporting and crushing. It is noted that there is t it '"'difference in elevation of 30 to 40 metres between quarry and the village. village being at a lower elevation and therefore it is advised that the blastin the quarry should therefore be planned in such a way that t.l1e1'e no effect. of ground /"1 é -32- vibrations and fly rock on the domestic structures of Vadderahalli village. As far as ground Vibration-share concerned. it is stated that if they have sufficientf_'en'er§§3-ii _ can cause damage to structures. If the seve1'~'~ity:'osi' the«.blast'~.. vibrations increases there can building in the following ways;
Dustfalling from oldlipldster ' Extension Q")'7Q_id. plzislt'er.:lc:'rdl'c.'«:_s it New plasterllcraekforinatiod .
Ptasltéfi-"drop._ ini iarge"'arecis .
.<hSfi:*=P°¥'°-3 «T; -. Ejj.;rthe§{:.;seoere'danittge' to building"
45. Itflis' 4sta.tedlf~in'qeategorical terms that the human pe1'ceptionlliol_'V ground iribra.~tion is as low as 1 rnrn/s. Certain recoinnieiidyations'«were made with regard to the blasting 'opleration'st liillléf' said report.
aforesaid reports. we do not find any 'V rnateli-ial"l.aw.hlich states that the standards issued by the ll_*,Poiiliu_tionl Control Board vis~a--vis quarrying activity in
-- tjuestion have been complied with by the sixth respondent. it '''On the other hand, there is a categorical condition stipulated that the quarry should be closed down in case of any x?» * assistaiiee . A, _ 33 _ complaints of public or nearby residents. Though initially the Senior Geologist. gave a report on certain aspects of the quarry prior to the cormnencemem. subsequently it is___seen that the Tahsildar. Pandavapura, K Bet.tahalljiV"--.:._Granj Panchayat have given reasons for withdrawal of..A4"1"}--o ' certificate issued in favour of the sixth_4res.po'nVden;i 0"' Senior Geologist also issued show cause "notice ffour'--~_the cancellation of the tease andf._s"u.bsequ'ent1y_ datedv 0' 27.11.2008 directed that ail minifrigpaciivitjk hevvstorfiped with immediate effect citing 't;hVe?.damagt: to the houses in Vadderahalli xrillage an:dl"ii'i€.:'BdV'i3i'SE' of rock dust on sur1'ou._ndingfff' and fodder. Under the circ'urnst'ances,' we'--j.'are"---.o.f*the considered View that the reports _relied., upon fbythe sixth respondent are of no that the Tahsildar has withdrawn the 'no ot)jeuct.io'na certificate' issued in favour of the sixth respondent aside-perV}\nnexure--P dated 30.9.2008 though reference has 'hbeenfrnade to the 'no objection certificate' issued on 9.7.2004 00 "and the licence issued on 6.9.2008 and there is a reference also to the letter dated 21.8.2006 written to the Senior Geologist, explaining the harm caused on account of the mining aet.ivity and letter dated 6.9.2008 requesting for M."/t -35- is dated 1.12.2008. The report of the gram panchayat on this aspect of the matter is at Annexure--J.
48. Annexure ~¥ L to L23 are photographs "
damage caused to the houses of Vad'dara.hal'i_i V_illlage. lWlh.ile~.t it Pmnexures ~ M to M37 are photographs--A.A_d'epictin;.g-the tank and surrounding areas of .aridVVA-nn'e;Xure-"N is " V a copy of the represemationpsldatepd. l'l~4p.7.fiOG6_ said representation is made to the Taluk.
Thereafter, the the licence as per Senior Geologist at Mand3'a.has:lstat:ed_ being used to make holes or explosives are being used for quarryinglaet.ivit3t'whieh i:s'_.'eeausin.g damage to public life and 13ropertyI* l--lel'lhasvvrel"erred to the 'l'ahstldar"s letter dated 20{l8'«.to.'VA:s'tat.e that the trenches at the mining spot on 'olI'ythe."u.se of high capacity explosives have caused darnage~--l:to"t"he houses at Vaddarahalli Village and the same hasbeen videographed: that complaints have been received llfroinj the villagers with regard to the rock dust settling on '""agi*ic'ultural lands which has affected cultivation of the said lands and that show cause notice was issued to the sixth respondent to which reply was given; that there has been \:'l{)l'c1'{',lO1"1 of section 18[8]. [E01, 36[2] [3] and 6E2} of the z§,,.,,, X .» -86- KMMC Rules and that when spot inspection was conducted along with the Tahsildar. Pandavapura. drilling by ring---bore machine was found in the quarrying spot and "l'ahsi1dar has withdrawn the 'no objection lette~.r.l':.:'''a "
Senior Geologist, found that on aecou--nt 'l:.aforesaid~.i violations and in public interest, tithe. fninirig'licenee'*.b'e--.. cancelled with effect. from 27. and __with a dtrectiojn to " it remove the machinery being roused'-l'or.._minirigvfroth quarry lease area.
49. The said l:;j;aiicelEat,ioi"{ll ':."c'h.al.l:enged before the revisional at1t.h_or_ity.2" '1e1_ov?f'cv&e'1';AAi' it} is only the revisional aut.l1ority without':'tal{ing*into coiisideratioii the reasons as to why the licetlltringl"au't:horiity had cancelled the licence focused its .att'.e11't.io1i olniy. on the non--payment of the royalty by the and subiect. to the payment. of the balance r.oy.afI.tyl.'l the order of cancellation of licence by his order a'tV:1.\riiiexure--E. In lact. a perusal of Ar1r1exure~E which isvthe border of the Joint Director cum Revisional Authority dated 27.12.2008, no doubt relers to complaiiits made by it "the residents of Vaddarahalli village and the visual representation in form of CDs and the scieiitific investigation report carried out by the 0rgani?.aI.io11 of the (}overnrnent. of -37- India. but without referring to the contents of the same, t.he revisional authority simply states as follows:
"During the course of hearing. the nonpayment huge amount. of royalty arrears was obsemedforvfl'--_:
which the learned Advocate prayed the :"
Authority to give sufficient time as the 4. is running in financial 'i--l.ot«.qeuerl:_"
counsel has agreed to pay ouistlanciing' it A arrears of Rs.66,29,O4"7_/~.._Vbefore xIestoiraltio§n../_VQf quarry leases and the balantee will within thefinancial year"end." *
50. On the basis oflthe fsai'cij:'subri1i.ss~ion, the revision petit.io,jil\i\lrasi' direetion to collect 50% of the outstanding- alrrearsioftt'r0§ra»l.ty' only after which the files were to be_pr0CessVecir,forrestoration of quarry lease and the to t>e""Colleeted before the end of the financial A further direction was given to the co'rif_:ljil>et:en.t:tiauithority i.e., the Senior Geologist to make l".__freque*nt":risits to the quarry sites to ensure that the sixth "«:"res1:$ondent was following the recommendations of it i§l3;1RM/NITK scrupulously and that it would adhere to the KMMC Rules. 'i'he1*eafter, vide Annexure~F dated 7.1.2009. the quarry leases were reslorecl by the third respondent - Senior Geologist.
-38-
51. We are of the \-'i€W t.hat the revisional authority has not applied it.s mind to the reason for cancellation of t,he"li.c_'en'ce although initially the very same authority licence. Had the reasons been looked» into by'the'jre§fisi_ona.lV authority. the order at Annexure i.'\_fotiVldZn_o't passed. In fact, Annexure--'F is a- letter by the third respondent to the seconyd___r'osp'o_ndent 16.12.2008 refers to 264 COH1p1aiI1tS:'ii1a(3<3 held by the villagers of Vaddarahal].1-Village: niaterial has also been ignoredby second:.respondent.""'"
52. is on:V€.record'_' thatthe senior geologist issued notice underythe.yEi}§r)lobs'iVe's«Act as per AnneXure--K. But. the sixth --r.espon'de_nt'has failed to respond to the same. ~ It is alsonecessary to not.e that: counsel for the sixth H a statement at the Bar that: if an independent committee is constituted and in the event of there being any "finding regarding damage caused to the of the village in question. the sixth respondent. would it "be liable to pay compensation. This submission would not assist the sixth respondent for the reasons we have assigned during the course of this order. Monetary compensation is 19:» not the re1'nedy in Stttfh cases.
-39-
54. It is the duty of this court to take into consideration in appropriate cases when attention is drawn to coiieern;s._ovf persons in the vicinity of mines or quarries v'i7s_~2a--.v'is ' daily living and also with regard iiolultlie. have sustained to the houses and l"-properti--€s*.and,_"thVep_ environmental threat they t'ace'v.._arid act in vrith it law. It is in this context thati"poirit 'No.2 isdalsouanswered against, the sixth respondent; it
55. Apart 'itro'in~:the list of quarries produced Government Advocate that 5' of Vaddarahalli village paiichayat, as on date there have been no com.plaints.,n1adve as such. However, it is only in respect of l"the"particular quarries in question that these writ petitions " However, that would not mean that the order p_a-sseéjd in these writ petitions would be only restricted to the qirarrie-s in question.
The fact that there are about 90 quarries within V ""Pandavapura Taluk having been brought to our notice. we are of the considered view that the authority which has issued licences in respect of the quarries mentioned in the said iist would also consider as to whether the quarrying '/w
58. Writ. petitiorls are allowed.
-41- Parties to bear their own costs.
AN/-
Rule is made absolixm.