Karnataka High Court
M/S Fabio Exports vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 November, 2012
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N. Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANANDA
WRIT PETITION No.61346/2012
AND
WRIT PETITION No.61401/2012
BETWEEN
1. M/s. FABIO EXPORTS
1st FLOOR, SWASTIK COMPLEX,
OPP. APMC, HOSPET.
BY ITS PARTNERS PETITIONERS No.2 & 3
2. K.V. NAGARAJ S/O. K.GOPASETTY,
PARTNER OF PETITIONER No.1 FIRM,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O 1ST FLOOR, SWASTIK COMPLEX,
OPP. APMC, HOSPET.
3. KVN GOVINDARAJU S/O K.GOPALSETTY
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O 1ST FLOOR, SWASTIK COMPLEX,
OPP. APMC, HOSPET. ... PETITIONERS
(By Sriyuths.K.L.PATIL & S.S.BETURMATH, ADVS.)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT
(SSI, MINES & TEXTILE)
VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.
2
2. MONITORING COMMITTEE
KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
3. THE DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY
KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (MINES)
DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY
PARVEZ COMPLEX, HOSPET. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.P.H.GODKHINDI, HCGP )
These petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India r/w 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the
proceedings pending on the file of Civil Judge & JMFC,
Sandur in P.C.No.51/2010 and quash the e-Auction to be
held on 18.02.2012 at Auction No.MSTC/BLR/MONITORING
COMMITTEE/30/BANGALORE/11-12/10157 etc.
These petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing in
'B' group this day, the court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioners have filed these petitions to quash the proceedings in P.C.No.51/2010 pending trial for contravention of Sections 4 (1), 4 (1) (A) and Section 21 (1) to (6) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and also for an offence punishable under Section 379 IPC. The petitioners have also challenged the sale of 3 seized iron ore by e-Auction to be held by the Monitoring Committee.
2. Heard the learned counsel for parties.
3. The averments of complaint would disclose that petitioners had stocked 61,500 Metric tons of iron ore in Sy.No.42/4 of Siddapur village, Sandur Taluk. In terms of Government Order bearing No.113/MMM/2010 dated 13.08.2010, the petitioners should have obtained the permission from the Stock Yard; Karnataka State Pollution Control Board; conversion order from the Deputy Commissioner; permission from the concerned Directorate of Small Scale Industries; certificate from the Commercial Tax department and they should have also produced income tax certificate and sales tax certificate.
4. The petitioners should have also filed an affidavit stating that they are not involved in illegal mining and they have not been convicted under the provisions of the Mines 4 and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short "the Act")
5. The petitioners were issued with show-cause notice relating to stockyard in Sy.No.42/4 of Siddapur village, Sandur Taluk on 13.08.2010. The petitioners were also informed that in terms of Government Order No.CI/31/MMM 2005 dated 21.09.2005, the stockyard permission given to petitioners was withdrawn on 13.08.2010. On 30.08.2010, petitioners caused a reply stating that they have stocked 61,500 Metric tones of iron ore after obtaining necessary permission from the department. However, it is noticed from the commencement certificate relating to stockyard issued on 17.06.2009, the permit had expired on 16.06.2010. Even then, petitioners continued to store the aforestated quantity of iron ore without obtaining permit. The petitioners were directed to stop their activities forthwith however, the petitioners continued their activities and stored 75,000 Metric tones of iron ore in the stockyard.
5
6. On perusal of averments of complaint and documents filed along with the complaint, it cannot be said that, averments made in the complaint do not constitute offences alleged against petitioners or it is not possible to hold that averments are absurd or obscure. Therefore, there are no grounds to quash the proceedings.
7. The petitioners have also challenged the E-auction proceedings held by the Monitoring Committee.
8. In Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.7366- 7367/ 2010 (in the case of Government of A.P. & Others
-vs- M/s.Obulapuram Mining Co. Pvt. Ltd., & Others) dated 29.07.2011, the Supreme Court has held:
"We make it clear that E-auction will take place irrespective of long term contracts entered into by M/s.NMDC. We also make it clear that no court in this country will take up any challenge to E-auction, except this court."
9. It is clear from the above order that if petitioners were aggrieved by E-auction proceedings held by the 6 Monitoring Committee, the petitioners should have approached the Supreme Court challenging the action taken by Monitoring Committee. In the circumstances, this court has no jurisdiction to pass orders.
10. The learned counsel for petitioners has relied on the judgment of Division Bench of this court in W.P.No.2285/2012 dated 23.01.2012. On careful consideration of judgment, I find that, in the aforestated judgment, there is no reference to the order of Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.7366-7367/ 2010 (in the case of Government of A.P. & Others -vs- M/s.Obulapuram Mining Co. Pvt. Ltd., & Others) dated 29.07.2011. Therefore, Division Bench judgment will not come to rescue of the petitioners.
11. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER The petitions are dismissed.7
The observations made in this order shall not be construed as expression of opinion on merits of case.
Sd/-
JUDGE Np/-