Karnataka High Court
M/S Bramhalingeshwara Stone vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 June, 2013
Bench: Chief Justice, B.V.Nagarathna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2013
: PRESENT :
THE HON'BLE MR. D.H.WAGHELA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
WRIT PETITION Nos. 12557-12590 / 2013 (GM-MM-S)
BETWEEN
1. M/S BRAMHALINGESHWARA STONE
CRUSHING INDUSTRIES
SY.NO. 18, NEELANAKOPPAL VILLAGE,
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT, BY IT'S PARTNER,
SRI RAMAKRISHNA M
2. M/S SRI CHELUVARAYASWAMY STONE CRUSHER
SY.NO.351, MUNDAGADORE VILLAGE,
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT, BY IT'S PROPRIETOR
SRI M.C.MARIYAPPA
3. M/S RAMA STONE CRUSHERS
SY.NO.105, GANAGURE VILLAGE,
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT, BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SMT B.M.SUDHA
4. M/S SHIVA PRIYA STONE CRUSHERS
SY.NO. 185, HANGARAHALLI VILLAGE
BANNUR ROAD, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT, BY IT'S PARTNER
SRI S.Y.AFSAR
5. M/S GOKUL STONE CRUSHER,
SY.NO. 351, MUNDAGADORE VILLAGE,
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK,
2
MANDYA DISTRICT, BY IT'S PROPRIETOR
SRI JAMEER AHAMAD.
6. M/S BOREDEVARU STONE CRUSHER
SY.NO. 74, KALENAHALLI VILLAGE,
K SHETTAHALLI HOBLI,
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT, BY IT'S PROPRIETOR
SRI BORAPPA.
7. SRI SIDDESHWARA STONE CRUSHER,
SY.NO. 351, MUNGADORE VILLAGE,
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT, BY IT'S PROPRIETOR
SRI G.L.LAKSHMEGOWDA.
8. M/S SUBRAMANYESHWARA STONE CRUSHER
SY.NO. 351, MUNGADORE VILLAGE,
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT, BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI K MANJUNATH.
9. M/S B.G.S STONE CRUSHER
SY.NO. 383, MUNDAGADORE VILLAGE,
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT, BY IT'S PROPRIETOR
SRI C.M.NAVEEN CHANDRA.
10. M/S HINDUSTAN STONE CRUSHER
SY.NO. 185, HANAGARAHALLI VILLAGE
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT, BY IT'S PROPRIETOR
SRI FAZIL HUSSAIN
11. M/S A R S STONE CRUSHER
SY.NO. 351, MUNDAGADORE VILLAGE
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT, BY IT'S PROPRIETOR
SRI SHABBIR AHAMED
12. M/S MARUTHI STONE CRUSHER
SY.NO. 115, KATHA NO. 141
3
CHANNANAKERE VILLAGE
ARAKERE HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT, BY IT'S PROPRIETOR
SRI GOPINATH Y.D.
13. M/S R P N STONE CRUSHER
SY.NO. 128, GOWDAHALLI VILLAGE
K SHETTAHALLI HOBLI
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT, BY IT'S PROPRIETOR
SRI RAMALINGAIAH
14. M/S J J INDUSTRIES
SY.NO. 78, CHENNAHERE VILLAGE
JAKKANAHALLI POST, ARAKERE HOBLI
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT, BY IT'S PROPRIETOR
SRI L.J.RAMDEV
15. M/S SRI MALLESHWARA STONE CRUSHER
KODISHETTYPURA VILLAGE
K SHETTAHALLI HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT, BY IT'S PROPRIETOR
SRI MALLESH
16. M/S SRI ARAKESHWARA STONE CRUSHERS
SITE NO. 53, KALENAHALLI VILLAGE
K SHETTAHALLI HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT, BY IT'S PROPRIETOR
SRI H.A.CHANDRASHEKARA
17. M/S YARB STONE CRUSHER
KALENAHALLI VILLAGE
K SHETTAHALLI HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT, BY IT'S PROPRIETOR
SRI ABZAL
18. M/S BHARATH STONE CRUSHER
SY.NO. 351, MUNDAGADORE VILLAGE
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT, BY IT'S PROPRIETOR
SRI NASRUALLA KHAN
4
19. M/S DIAMOND STONE CRUSHER
SY.NO. 351, MUNDAGADORE VILLAGE
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT, BY IT'S PROPRIETIX
SMT. RESHMA NIKHAT
W/O LATE SYED RAHAMATULLA
20. M/S KANKARD STONE CRUSHER
SY.NO. 185, HANGARAHALLI VILLAGE
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT, BY IT'S PROPRIETOR
SRI INDRAKUMAR
21. M/S HARSHA STONE CRUSHER
SY.NO. 185, HANGARAHALLI VILLAGE
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT, BY IS PROPRIETOR
SRI J HARSHVARDANA
22. M/S SRI CHAMUNDESHWARI STONE CRUSHING
INDUSTRIES
HANGARAHALLI VILLAGE
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT, BY IT'S PROPRIETOR
SRI N PUTTASWAMY
23. M/S CHOWDESHWARI CRUSHER
SY.NO. 185, HONGARAHALLI VILLAGE
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY IT'S
PROPRIETOR SRI K.P.DINESH KUMAR
24. M/S ANJANEYA STONE CRUSHER
SY.NO. 351, MUNDAGADORE VILLAGE
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY IT'S
PROPRIETOR SRI M RAMANAYYA
25. M/S MARUTHI STONE CRUSHER
SY.NO. 185, HONGARAHALLI VILLAGE
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK
5
MANDYA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY IT'S
PROPRIETOR SRI S.N KANTHARAJU
26. M/S S L V STONE CRUSHER
SY.NO. 185, HONGARAHALLI VILLAGE
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY IT'S
PARTNER SRI R MANJUNATHREDDY
27. M/S SUMATHI STONE CRUSHER
SY.NO. 81, RAGIMUDDENAHALLI VILLAGE
KOTTATTI HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK & DISTRICT
BY IT'S PROPRITRIEX SMT. M.S.ASHA
28. M/S D.K.ASSOCIATES
SY.NO. 81, RAGIMUDDANAHALLI VILLAGE
MANDYA-MYSORE ROAD, MANDYA,
BY IT'S PARTNER SRI C SURESH
29. M/S PRIME STONE CRUSHER
SY.NO. 351, MUNDUGADORE VILLAGE
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT, BY IT'S PROPRIETOR
SRI FAROOQ AHAMED
30. LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA STONE CRUSHER
SY.NO. 351, MUNDUGADORE VILLAGE
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT, BY IT'S PROPRIETOR
SRI H.B.CHANDRASHEKAR
31. SRIRAMA STONE
SY.NO. 82/2, 84/2, 84/3
SIDDAPURA VILLAGE, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT, BY IT'S PROPRIETOR
SMT. K.R.PRABHAVATHI JAYARAM
32. M/S SIDDU STONE CRUSHER
SY.NO. 43, HARAKANAHALLI VILLAGE
MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT
BY IT'S PROPRIETOR SRI N.C.PRASANNAKUMAR
6
33. M/S VENKATESHWARA STONE CRUSHER
SY.NO. 43, HARAKANAHALLI VILLAGE
MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT
BY IT'S PROPRIETOR SRI M. CHANDRU
34. M/S SHANTHI STONE CRUSHER
SY.NO. 43, HARAKANAHALLI VILLAGE
MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT
BY IT'S PROPRIETOR SRI B.K.APPAJEGOWDA
... PETITIONERS
( BY SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
P MAHESHA & KRISHNA B.J, ADVOCATES. )
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF MINES GEOLOGY
KANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE - 560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER &
LICENSING AUTHORITY, CHAIRMAN,
DISTRICT STONE CRUSHERS
REGULATION COMMITTEE, MANDYA DISTRICT
MANDYA-571401
3. THE KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PARISARA BHAVANA, 4TH AND 5TH FLOORS
NO. 49, CHURCH STREET
BANGALORE-560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
... RESPONDENTS
( BY SRI R.G. KOLLE, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2.
SRI. D. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R-3. )
7
WRIT PETITIONS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY R-2, THE LICENSING
AUTHORITY, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND CHAIRMAN,
DISTRICT STONE CRUSHERS REGULATION COMMITTEE,
MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA, VIDE ANNEXURES E-1 TO E-34,
ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA, J, MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners are the proprietors of various stone crushing units who have assailed the order of Respondent No.2 Deputy Commissioner & Chairman of the District Stone Crushers Regulation Committee, Mandya District, vide Annexures E-1 to E-34. They have also sought a direction against the respondents to permit them to continue their stone crusher units in the present location till the Safer Zones are notified.
2. The brief facts of the case are that pursuant to the order of the Division Bench of this court, which has been 8 affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Obayya Pujary's case, the State Government has enacted the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crusher Act, 2011 and the Rules made thereunder. Under the said Act, Safer Zones have to be identified for locating the stone crusher units throughout the State. Section 3 of the said Act mandates that licences have to be obtained prior to setting up of stone crusher units in Safer Zones. Provision is made for the application for seeking licences, consideration thereof and also for shifting of the stone crusher units to Safer Zones.
3. In the instant case, most of the petitioners made their respective applications seeking permission to shift their existing stone crusher units to Safer Zones based on Annexure-D, which is an order dated 20.10.2012 by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Respondent No.3 herein, which has certified establishing of Safer Zones in S.No.185 of Hangarahalli Village and S.No.351 of Mundagadore Village, Srirangapatna Taluk, to an extent of 60 acres and 20 acres respectively. Of course, certain 9 other applications pertained to issuance of licences in respect of certain other survey numbers in certain villages which are not certified by Respondent No.3. The said applications were considered by the Deputy Commissioner as the Chairman of the Committee and all the applications have been rejected by a common reason that the land applied for has not been notified as Safer Zone under the provisions of the Act. The said rejection orders are at Annexures E-1 to E-34, which are assailed in these writ petitions.
4. We have heard learned senior counsel Sri Ashok Haranahalli for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. Sri R.G.Kolle for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel Sri D.Nagaraj for Respondent No.3.
5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners initially submitted that the petitioners were justified in making their applications for obtaining licences in S.No.185 of Hangarahalli Village and S.No.351 of Mundagadore Village 10 of Srirangapatna Taluk on the premise that the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board had certified these areas as Safer Zones. However, the Deputy Commissioner was not right in rejecting their applications on the ground that the lands applied for by the petitioners have not yet been notified as Safer Zones. During the course of his submissions, he has also submitted an application seeking an additional prayer by bringing to our notice the fact that as far as these two survey numbers in the said villages are concerned, there is a communication dated 17.6.2013 made by the Department of Commerce and Industry to the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District, with regard to the establishment of three Safer Zones in Mandya District and, as far as S.No.185 of Hangarahalli Village and S.No.351 of Mundagadore Village are concerned, the matter has to be reconsidered having regard to the fact that the Department of Forest had stated that the said survey numbers have been classified as C and D category lands. He, therefore, submitted that, in view of the Departments themselves 11 reconsidering the matter, a direction should be issued to the concerned Departments to take a decision on these two survey numbers so that a notification could be issued in respect of these two survey numbers in accordance with law. He also contended that these two survey numbers are not C & D category lands and therefore they ought to have been declared as Safer Zones by the Deputy Commissioner of Mandya District.
6. Having regard to these submissions, the application for additional prayer is taken on record.
7. Learned A.G.A. appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 has brought to our notice that though the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board had certified that these two survey numbers in the said villages could be established as Safer Zones, they were subject to certain terms and conditions to be complied with. As the Forest Department had objected to these areas being declared as Safer Zones as they are categorized as C and D category lands, they 12 have to be considered as deemed forest. These areas thus not having been notified in Mandya District, two other areas in Nagamangala Taluk and K.R.Pet Taluk having been declared to be Safer Zones, the petitioners are at liberty to shift their stone crusher units to the said zones, if they so desire. Therefore, the rejection orders are in accordance with law is the submission of the learned A.G.A.
8. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel on both sides and on a perusal of the material on record, we note that the stone crusher units cannot be located in their present locations as the present locations are not declared as Safer Zones. The petitioners, under the provisions of the Act, would have to obtain licences to carry on the stone crusher units only in the Safer Zones. Their applications were in respect of S.No.185 of Hangarahalli Village and S.No.351 of Mundagadore Village of Srirangapatna Taluk, which were certified by order of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board dated 20.10.2012, 13 which order was subject to certain terms and conditions to be complied by the State Government. Since the State Government has not yet taken any decision to notify these survey numbers as Safer Zones, the Deputy Commissioner was justified in declining to grant licences and thereby rejecting the applications made by the petitioners.
9. However, in view of the recent developments which have been brought to our notice by learned senior counsel for the petitioners, in that there is a communication which has been addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya, dated 17.6.2013 (Annexure-F), there appears to be reconsideration of the matter in respect of those two survey numbers in the two villages. We find that the concerned authorities would have to take a decision as to whether, based on the certification issued by the Pollution Control Board, those two survey numbers in the two villages could be declared as Safer Zones. Since the said decision has not yet taken place, we can only direct the authorities concerned to reapply their mind on this aspect of the 14 matter and to consider to notify these areas as Safer Zones in accordance with law.
10. In that view of the matter, the annexures impugned in these writ petitions would not call for any interference. The petitioners cannot also be granted any permission to carry on their stone crusher units in the present locations. The respondent authorities to reconsider the matter in the light of Annexure-F and the subsequent communication, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
It is needless to clarify that if and when any particular survey number is declared to be Safer Zone in accordance with law, the petitioners would be at liberty to apply for locating their stone crusher units in such Safer Zone. It is also clarified that the petitioners are otherwise at liberty to apply for licence if they propose to locate their stone crusher units in any other area, which is already declared as Safer Zone.
15
The petitions accordingly stand disposed of.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE ckc/-