Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

D.H.WAGHELA, C.J. (Oral) :

1. The petitioner is stated to have secured building stone quarrying lease and licence vide QL No.682 in respect of an area of 01 acre in Sy.No.6 of Sulebylu village in Shimoga Taluka and Shimoga District, for a period of five years from 30.04.2010 which is valid up to 29.03.2015. The petitioner claims to have obtained no objection certificate for carrying out blasting operations in the quarrying lease area as provided under the provisions of the Explosives Rules, 2008.

Accordingly, admittedly, the petitioner is carrying out his stone quarrying activities with the aid of explosives.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.5, Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Shimoga, has notified a part of the land bearing Sy.No.6 as 'Safer Zone' under the provisions of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011, and respondent No.6 is allotted land for their stone crusher unit within 200 meters of the quarrying lease area occupied by the petitioner. It is the contention of petitioner that since petitioner has been permitted to carry out quarrying activity with the help of explosives, permitting respondent No.6 to put up a stone crusher unit within the buffer zone of 200 meters is impermissible under the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 ('KMMC Rules' for short) as also the Explosives Rules, 2008. It was submitted that if the stone crusher unit is allowed to be set up and operated by respondent No.6, petitioner will not be able to carry out his lawful activities. The petitioner has sought to indirectly challenge notification dated 07.02.2013 of the Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga, whereby lands adjoining the area leased out to petitioner are declared as 'Safer Zone' for stone crusher units.

6. As stated in the statement of Senior Geologist, the business of stone crushers and quarrying operations are related to each other. In fact, there are 18 quarrying leases operating near the safer zone and stone crusher units are allotted sites in the safer zone which is adjacent to the existing quarries or within a short distance thereof. If a distance of 200 metres had to be maintained, there could not be any stone crusher in the safer zone and the stones quarried by the leaseholders would be unnecessarily required to be transported at a distance which would not be convenient or conducive for clean environment. The District Stone Crusher Committee headed by Deputy Commissioner appears to have taken all these aspects into consideration and declared the safer zone, and therefore, even as the petitioner is granted permission to use explosives, he has to undertake blasting operations only after taking precautionary measures. In fact, notice dated 22.07.2014 is already issued to the petitioner by respondent No.4 to follow procedure prescribed in the Explosives Rules, 2008 and the Explosives Act, 1884.

7. In view of the facts and contentions, petitioner is required to abide by conditions of lease and licence, conditions imposed for issuing licence under the Explosives Rules, 2008, as also conditions contained in schedule to the quarrying

- 10 -

lease, particularly in respect of use of explosives. In case of any violation or failure on the part of the petitioner, respondents concerned are required to take energetic action in the interest of rule of law, safety of the neighbouring industrial units and for protection of the environment.