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 11, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri.K.R. Tejash vs State Of Karnataka on 29 October, 2021

Author: Ritu Raj Awasthi

Bench: Ritu Raj Awasthi

                            -1-


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

                        PRESENT

 THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE

                           AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

  WRIT PETITION NO.58747 OF 2017 (GM-MM-S)PIL

  BETWEEN:
  1.     SRI.K.R. TEJASH
         S/O RAMALINGE GOWDA,
         AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
         RESIDENT OF KODI SHETTIPURA VILLAGE,
         SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK,
         MANDYA DISTRICT-571807

  2.     SRI.VISHNU K
         S/O KALEGOWDA,
         AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
         RESIDENT OF RAAGEMUDDENAHALLI VILLAGE,
         YALACHENAHALLI, K.R.PET TALUK,
         MANDYA DISTRICT-571401         ... PETITIONERS

  (BY SRI KALYAN R, ADVOCATE-ABSENT)


  AND:
  1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
     DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY,
     M.S.BUILDING,
     AMBEDKAR STREET,
     BANGALORE-560001
     REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

  2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
     DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
     M.S.BUILDING,
     AMBEDKAR STREET,
     BANGALORE-560001

  3. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST (MINES DIVISION)
                         -2-


  DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY,
  VIDYANAGARA, 1ST CROSS,
  MANDYA-571401

4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
   MANDYA DISTRICT,
   MANDYA-571401

5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
   PANDAVAPURA SUB-DIVISION,
   MANDYA-571401

6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
   MANDYA DISTRICT,
   MANDYA - 571401

7. THE TAHASILDAR
   SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK,
   MANDYA DISTRICT - 571401

8. THE TAHASILDAR
   MANDYA TALUK,
   MANDYA-571401

9. THE REGIONAL OFFICER
   THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
   PES ENGINEERING COLLEGE ROAD,
   BEHIND GOVT., COLLEGE,
   MANDYA-571401

10.THE KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
   "PARISARA BHAVAN",
   #49, 4TH & 5TH FLOOR,
   CHURCH STREET,
   BANGALORE-560001
   REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

11.THE JOINT DIRECTOR
   DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY,
   SOUTH ZONE,
   NO.167, 11TH MAIN,
   SARASWATHIPURAM,
   NEAR TO POST OFFICE,
   MYSORE TOWN-570009.

12.M/S. D.K.ASSOCIATES
   REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
   MR. K. DASHARATHA,
   NO.630, KRISHA RICE ROAD,
                         -3-


  CHAMARAJA MOHALL,
  MYSORE-570024.

13.M/S. SRIRAMA INDUSTRIES
   REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
   SMT. K.R. PRABHAVATHI JAYARAM W/O JAYARAM,
   KODISHETTIPURA, T.M.HOSUR POST,
   SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK,
   MANDYA DISTRICT-571401.

14.M/S. MALLESHWARA STONE CRUSHER
   REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
   MR. MALLESH,
   SY. NO. 81, RAGIMUDDANAHALLI VILLAGE,
   MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571401

15.M/S. G.M.STONE CRUSHER
   REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
   MR. SYED RIYAZ AHMED
   RAGIMUDDANAHALLI VILLAGE,
   MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571401

16.M/S. SUMATHI STONE CRUSHER
   REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SMT. M.S.ASHA,
   SY.NO.81, RAGIMUDDANAHALLI VILLAGE,
   MANDYA TALUK,
   MANDYA DISTRICT-571401           ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI S.S.MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R1 TO R8 AND R11;
SRI K.L.SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR R9 AND R10;
SRI M.C.JAYAKIRTHI, ADVOCATE FOR R12 TO R14 AND R16;
V/O DATED 09/01/2020 NOTICE TO R15 IS TREATED AS
SERVED)
                         ---
     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL
FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENT NO.4
REGARDING    ESTABLISHMENT    OF   DISTRICT   STONE
CRUSHERS REGULATION COMMITTEE UNDER SECTION 8 OF
THE KARNATAKA REGULATION OF STONE CRUSHERS ACT
2011 AND ITS PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO DECLARATION
OF SAFER ZONE AT MANDYA AND SRIRANGAPATTANA
TALUKS OF MANDYA DISTRICT;

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, CHIEF
JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                             -4-




                          ORDER

None appears for the petitioners.

2. This Public Interest Litigation has been filed seeking for the following reliefs:-

a) Call for the records from respondent No.4 regarding establishment of District Stone Crushers Regulation Committee under Section 8 of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 and its proceedings relating to declaration of safer zone at Mandya and Srirangapattana taluks of Mandya District.
b) Also call for the records/report from respondent No.1 in respect of the annual statutory report submitted by the respondent No.4 as a Chairman to the committee under Section 8 in compliance with Section 14 of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 for the year 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 so far as Mandya district is concerned.
c) Issue writ or direction or any other order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to 4 to take necessary action/steps to stop the illegal stone crushing and stone quarrying activities at Ragimuddanahalli village of Mandya Taluk and Kodishettipura village of Srirangapattana Taluk.
d) Issue writ or direction or any other order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.4 or to licensing authority under Section 2[1][f] of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 to cancel all the illegal licenses have been issued to various stone crusher and stone quarrying units at -5- Ragimuddanahalli and Kodishettipura villages of Mandya District.
e) Issue necessary direction to respondent No.1 and 4 to constitute high power committee or any other committee consisting of experts of mines and geology department and revenue department to assess the damage caused to houses, crops and lives of the residents of Regimuddanahalli and Kodishettipura villages of Mandya district due to illegal stone mining and stone crushing activity by exercising power under Section 11 of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011. Further, issue appropriate direction to respondent No.4 to exercise the powers under Section 12 of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 to pay compensation to the victims' suffered with damage by the illegal stone crushing at Ragimuddanahalli and Kodishettipura villages.
f) Issue necessary direction to respondent No.4 to take necessary action to initiate appropriate prosecution proceedings under Section 16 of Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 and Amended Act, 2013 against the crushers who have carrying the stone crushing and mining activity in the absence of valid license or carrying the stone crushing and mining activity by violating the conditions prescribed under the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 and Amended Act, 2013 at Ragimuddanahalli, Kodishettipura and other villages of Mandya District.
g) Also issue appropriate direction or writ to Anti-Corruption Burro or any other Agency of the state constituted for the purposes of implementation of Prevention of Corruption Act to hold necessary enquiry against officials of the Mandya district, who have either directly or indirectly allowed the illegal stone quarrying and Stone crushing activity by violating the prevailing.
-6-
h) Issue writ or direction or appropriate order deems fit to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand and to meet the interest of justice.

3. Petitioners have come out with the allegations of illegal stone quarrying and stone crushing activities at Ragimuddanahalli Village of Mandya Taluk and Kodishettipura village of Srirangapattana Taluk. It is prayed that all the illegal licenses under the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 be cancelled.

4. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the basis of instructions submits that spot inspection has been carried out on 26.10.2021 and no illegal mining activities have been found and the licensees are not involved in any illegal mining activity. There is specific endorsement that all the quarries are working as per the valid mining licences.

5. In view of the above, we do not find anything to be adjudicated upon. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

-7-

6. The pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-

JUDGE KPS