Sri Arunkumar M G vs State Of Karnataka on 26 October, 2010

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Arunkumar M G vs State Of Karnataka on 26 October, 2010

Bench: J. S. Khehar

 

 - SR1  KENC%rI.AI"PA SHETSANIDI

AGE" 40 YEARSA " I ._
R/ O.*BEL.T.J'R, ' RANEBENNUR TALUK

[SR1 BASAVARAJAPPA c MALAVALLI
 AGE 45 YEARS
 ' ..'IfHESQRAI\/IAI)EVA'IIIA
 E AGRAIVLABHIVRUDHI SAMITI-II
 «LI-II'REBIDARE, TALUK RANEBENNUR
  {fIA3VERI DISTRICT

TSRI RAVI R JADAMALI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 26'?" DAY OF OCTOBER, 201-'0»
PRESENT   "

THE HON'BLE MR. J. S. KHEHAR,   A'

AND  

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE. BOPANNIA *

w.I=>. No. 29496 OF-:{0I:Q  
w.p. Nos. 3O987+3.Q99GI"OF..'2__f)'IO_ (GI\/I--EVIE\zi'--S}

B ETWEEN:

I SR1 ARUNKUMAKM    :
S/O SRI3._MA_}IESHWARAPPA=. A 
AGE     
R/O KQDiI_Y.e.L HOSPET._  .

KU'IvL%.RAIPATI'€J'IM''PO81' ' 

RANEBENNUR  
HAVERI DIST... I  

SON "OF FENCHAPPA

HAVERI DIS*'1:--._ 

AGE 4-5 YEARS

S / O RAMAPPA JADAMALI
R/O RAJESHVVARI NAGAR
RANEBENNUR, HAVERI DIST.

4%

 



  DEPUTY CONEJIISSIONER 3: CHAIRMAN

 SRI[RT1GA'OKOLLE, AGA. FOR R1 8: 4)

Tvfj"A_RTICLES 226 %}3 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDXA
 PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE
 RESPONDENTS WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN

5 SR1 BEERAPPA SHIVAPPA KURUBARA AGE 40 YEARS S /O SHIVAPPA KURUBARA P.O. NADI LI RANEBENNUR TALUK HAVERI DIST. ...PETIT:«QNERS., (BY SR1 L M CHIDANANDAYYA, ADV.) AND: _ 1 STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY ._ DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES ' 8: COMMERCE "

SSI, MINES 3: TEXTILES GOVERNMENT OF "-- . 2 VIKASA SOUDHA _ V. ' BANGALORE -- 560 00.1 I

2 DIRECTQR--.QE.MINES A.ND_GEjOL'OGY DEPARTE/IEI§1T*_OE MIIx.IES AND GEOLOGY KARN.;'\TA_KA§" i{Lj£jIAN1JA"B__ A'\"x'AI'~f. ' RACE C,OUR_SE ..

BANGALORE 4» 560 _O'O9 = 4 3 SENIOR GEOLOGIST [MINES] ' DERARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY HAVERI QISTRECT _ OF SAND MONITARING COMMITTEE A ._I-IAvER1V EHSTRICT HAV__ERI" ...RESPONDENTS

-TRESE WRET PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER SEIZING THE SAND FROM THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY WITHOUT PASSING ANY ORDER OF SEIZURE OF THE SAND: DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO RELEASE THE sé 3 SAND STOCKED IN THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY EY DECLARING THE SEIZURE OF THE SAND WITHOUT PASSING ANY ORDER IS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT ___THE AUTHORITY OF LAW AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTSTO ISSUE THE MINERM. DISPATCH RERII/IITS'~V.,"-««:3*OR TRANSPORTING THE SAND TEMPORARILY ST.OCl_§EL",j'IVN THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY.

-mesa WE. COMING ON FOR _PREL£M§NARY'.':IEARI.NG_ THIS DAY, A. s. BOPANNA, J., MADE THE.vF'QLLOWIN.(,}:" * _ I ORDER,fu The petitioners are bcfoiie this jC)our1t.:vllsee1:j.ng3 for issue of writ of mandamus .direct the-respondents to release the Sand stoCil<leCll'irIf'ttliIe property by declaringthe san'd..wit}iout passing any order as illegal and l\}Ii'ItiIout4'a1;Ithority of law. The petitioners have also"ssoughlt._lordirectiori to the respondents, to issI_1é.:. rnineral "de.S_p_atch permits for transporting the 'sr-iricl.ter_n'porari.1y stocked in the schedule property. it A l'I'h's;fl.I£3ase of the petitioners is that the petitioner lx__Nos.2~~ are the lessees in respect of quarrying "ll sand after they were the successful bidders in the auction which was conducted in terms of Rule 21 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 {hereinafter referred to as 'the KMMC Rules'). The A petitioners accordingly contend that they have thereafter quarried and transported the sand as per'--.the terms of grant and also the legal requirementn; one of the conditions is, that the transport only dry sand, the petiitionerj, looked for areas nearby for thrzil transporting thereafter despateh permits. According there was no suitable land aVailable.~Vf~oif to the place of quarry to 5 decided to enter intoVgagre'eIi<:ent petitioner for sale of the sand and sell the same to general public._ In regard, petitioners have agreed to obtain

-"2,,ithe"l:i-niirieralzdespatchl permits from the leased area to " of the petitioners. Petitioners also con*t.endV~t~h.at the first petitioner is a trader canying on ll""'-"thepbiisiness of buying and selling of sand. In order to i._llte_n1--porarily store the mineral, the petitioner had entered into an agreement with the owners of the land bearing Sy.No.67 measuring 8 acres 5 guntas situated at Hulikatti village and also the land bearing is i It 5 Sy.No.523/6/1 measuring 71 X 60 ft. The petitioners contend that there was no requirement for obtaining permission to establish a stockyard. The Nos.2 to 5 thereafter obtained the permits on payment of royalty charges the third respondent to-.___ grant per1riVisoio_n for transporting of the sand the it lease granted to them. ""V-tlie:>"petitioners had transported the'.vsand:.to"'th'e temporarily, for the thereafter to be transported' " The grievance of the petitioners «. is ~ the said process the respondents" yvithhout. authority of law and without 'l 'the duemprocedure have seized the sand. petitioners have sought for the relief as prayed in the petition.

AA Z The respondents have filed their objection Jstatement. The fact relating to the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 ~being the successful bidders in public auction held during February 2010 for extracting ordinary sand from Tungabhadra River bed is not disputed. The period of 1% $a«

9. the lease from 20.2.2010 to 19.2.2011 is also admitted. In that background, it is contended that petitioner is not connected to the lease transa%:tioii.'V:' . further denied that the first petitioner _-'is"'a:'_'traderV 2"' sand. since no material is placed to"estalrlish"the."said:

contention. The respondentsliave indicated thevdetails * V of the quantity of whipclilllijwas-._,seiz;ed Sub- Inspector of Police, along with the officials of Lo1;a.y:u.kthaA.V' the officials of the ﬁieology. The said the storage of sand is illegal Contention of the petitioners that _ The ihhadtbleen stored in the property in for' the lpiirlpose of drying and other trading denied, but is also contended that the"~prox_fisions of the KMMC Rules does not envisage the oVp"1'eq_uireinent of a stockyard. The total quantity of the r._lsand*:seized is stated to be 3950 metric tonnes and the it "'qnantity claimed by the petitioners is 650 metric tonnes. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 have adveirted to the specific details relating to the manner in which the l 4'-n application was made seeking for mineral despatch permits and the conduct of the petitioner obtaining permits by not indicating the destination and thereafter manipulating _tl1--c.-- he respondents therefore contend that been stocked illegally has be_e'n_'seised'V'unde'r'd'é.i and the further is not complete. It is thereVforeaV«--e.rr{ed uthfatnthe relief prayed for by the petitioners isliable

4. rejoinder and have contendedlithat as indicated by the respondents is Without authority of law since the ..{ipl<a3m1ktha'-..has_pno jurisdiction to seize the sand.

Witih Vre.gard.,Atov the manner in which the sand had been seised stocked in the property in question at C_Hu1i1u<attit_village has been reiterated in the same manner A 'stated in the petition and also the quantity of the l sand as mentioned has been disputed by contending that the same cannot be measured unless there is a weighwbridge. The contention of the respondents with regard to the manner in which the inappropriate i aﬁo 8 mineral despatch permits had been obtained is denied. It is also contended that when there is no requirement, for establishment of a stockyard with sand being stored in any particular the purpose of drying in any event cannotbfe effect, the petitioners have oniy adverted toathe ; objections so as to reiterate inifgthe writ petition.

5. In the 1ightA.Vof:._t:he' v--.ri:vai.f"'p1eVaydings, we have heard Sri counsel for the petitioners -'learned Addl. Government Advocate "vv_hovV arguments in line with _ the..'c§o.nte-ntions in their respective pleadings. 'Int .,tI1.at background, it is seen that, the fact of the"petitiVorier,::.VNos.2 to 5 being the successful bidders andfarethe lease holders for the periods 20.2.2010 to it iff]t9,2«--...20i 1. to extract ordinary sand from Tungabhadra river belt, and that the extraction of the sand by the said petitioners is not a matter of dispute. Therefore, in that circumstance, even if it is admitted that the E Si «*3 9 petitioner Nos.2 to 5 had extracted the sand legally, the question is as to whether the seizure wovn1d""s.be appropriate and as to whether the petitioners"'c«onl'd granted the relief to direct the respondentsjliiito 'reiepasel 2 the sand.

7. In order to consider this aspect of .th?e.rnatté;r,l.'a , perusal of the material on indicate that clause 6 of the 1' certain conditions to be foillouhred viz., the petitioner case. The said conditions Encludewiicertain restrictions relating to the transport of'fl_;»erefore, the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 cannot transpor_t_t.'he sand in wet condition, is no doubt -,aaCo&ﬁd_i_tion incorporated in the lease deed. F'ulrt1ierV,'V}%essees would also have to obtain the valid perinit Vlissned by the department and the lessee shall A V.:ifnAoti'transfer any permits to any other person. In that regard, though it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the sand had been transported to the petition schedule land for the purpose of drying and t E0 thereafter to transport, since the said land was used as a stockyard, the said contention seems far fetched;

8. When the Mineral despatch permit_.is--. ~ indicating the place of quarrying nu and if the place of destination be assumed that the sandVlis:Vp:'in_g a con1diti'o:n"'at"jthe " ' point of lifting so asvtozxbe 'to"the/ipoint of destination in terms ofllthel in the lease document; pp lienice 'l notwithstanding the fact that to 5 have sought to rely on dtlhe-iT:r1_ineii'a1 _'de;spatch"' permits indicating the point of destinvationtas liiilikatti in some of the permits and«ir;onsideriVn'g.. the said place is away from the place vqiiarrying and also considering the fact that the ﬁ1'st"~petitiojne:r who is not a lease holder is also claiming right to seized sand, the same would indicate that ' "transport and stocking of huge quantity of sand in the petition schedule property would Weigh against the petitioners for the relief since the further investigation in the matter is to be completed by the respondents. i"

i 12 third respondent, considering the fact that the mineral despatch permit is not in consonance with sought by them in their applications, the ' be relied on at this stage. EVen.if~there 1}3,pg'e it on the part of any of the officials oflthe would be open for the relspondents to sthat"

aspect of the matter, bLixt, anyéevent, cannot create any right in ra{}o1';rp since such manipulation. except at the instance of Efhereiore, they cannot be permitted'to,{31;e:3gidx;:aia,tage'oftheir own act which has ied to _1.,0. 4Si'f_1ce..'.'-th'e "seizure has been made in "".,.,.acCorda..nce- '1aw'and the further investigation and V"to}be taken by the respondent authorities, we *--arev_.of,Vtiie view that the relief sought for by the "petitioners to direct the respondents to release the sand is seized by them, cannot be granted. However,

-depending on the result of the investigation, it would be open to the petitioners to make appropriate application 3;

13 to the concerned respondents who may consider the same in accordance with law.

Accordingly, these petitions being K stand dismissed. No order as togcosts.' akc/ v_ Index: Y/N 2 "

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court