Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 124 (KAR)

MUNIBACHAMMA v. DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY

1996-02-19

P.VISHWANATHA SHETTY

body1996
P. VISHWANATHA SHETTY, J. ( 1 ) IN THIS PETITION, THE PETITIONER HAS PRAYED FOR QUASHING THE order DATED 26-6-1995 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT REJECTING the REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER SEEKING TO SET ASIDE the ORDER OF DEEMED REJECTION OF THE APPLICATION DATED 27th JUNE, 1992, FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR GRANT OF QUARRYING LEASE IN respect OF THE LAND BEARING SY. NO. 187 MEASURING 0-20 GUNTAS, situated AT KOIRA VILLAGE, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT, for THE PURPOSE OF QUARRYING OF BUILDING STONES. THE COPY OF THE application DATED 27th JUNE, 1992, FILED BY THE PETITIONER HAS been PRODUCED IN THIS PETITION AS ANNEXURE - A, AND THE COPY OF the ORDER DATED 26th JUNE, 1995, PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT has BEEN PRODUCED IN THIS PETITION AS ANNEXURE -C. ( 2 ) THE FIRST RESPONDENT, BY MEANS OF THE ORDER ANNEXURE-C, REJECTED THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON THE ground THAT SINCE THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR GRANT of LEASE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN REJECTED AS PROVIDED UNDER RULE 6 of THE KARNATAKA MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES, 1969, (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE 'rules'), THE FIRST RESPONDENT WAS not AN APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER THE REVISION PETITION filed BY THE PETITIONER. ( 3 ) SRI PANEENDRA, LEARNED ADVOCATE APPEARING FOR SRI D. L. N. RAO, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER, SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER annexure-C IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS no APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT WITH REGARD TO THE contentions URGED BY THE PETITIONER AT THE STAGE OF HEARING OF THE revision PETITION; AND THAT THE 2nd RESPONDENT WAS UNDER A statutory OBLIGATION TO DISPOSE OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE petitioner FOR GRANT OF QUARRYING LEASE WITHIN 3 MONTHS FROM THE date OF THE RECEIPT OF THE APPLICATION, AND IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE 2nd RESPONDENT HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS STATUTORY OBLIGATION and THEREFORE, IT WAS INCUMBENT ON THE PART OF THE FIRST respondent TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF DEEMED REJECTION OF THE application ANNEXURE-A FILED BY THE PETITIONER, AND DIRECT THE 2nd RESPONDENT TO RECONSIDER THE APPLICATION ON MERITS AFTER conducting AN ENQUIRY AS PROVIDED UNDER RULE 9 OF THE RULES AND that THE POWER CONFERRED ON THE COMPETENT OFFICER TO DISPOSE OF the APPLICATION FILED FOR GRANT OF QUARRYING LEASE WITHIN THREE months UNDER RULE 6 OF THE RULES, IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER AS rule 9 OF THE RULES, CASTS A DUTY ON THE COMPETENT OFFICER TO conduct AN ENQUIRY ON RECEIPT OF THE APPLICATION FILED FOR quarrying LEASE, AND THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER HAS NOT BEEN considered BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT WHILE PASSING THE ORDER annexure-C. ( 4 ) SRI L. NARAYANASWAMY, THE LEARNED HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SUBMITTED THAT THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE petitioner STATUTORILY CAME TO BE REJECTED, AND SO LONG AS THE validity OF RULE 6 OF THE RULES HAS NOT BEEN CHALLENGED, THE ORDER passed BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN REVISION, DOES NOT CALL FOR interference BY THIS COURT. ( 5 ) I AM UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI NARAYANASWAMY. ( 6 ) RULE 6 OF THE RULES, REQUIRES THAT EVERY APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF QUARRYING LEASE SHOULD BE DISPOSED OF WITHIN THREE months FROM THE DATE OF ITS RECEIPT. THE SAID RULE FURTHER provides THAT IF THE APPLICATION IS NOT DISPOSED OF WITHIN A PERIOD of THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE APPLICATION, THE APPLICATION is DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN REFUSED. THE SAID RULE FURTHER provides THAT IF THE APPLICATION IS NOT DISPOSED OF WITHIN A PERIOD of THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE APPLICATION, THE APPLICATION is DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN REFUSED. MERELY BECAUSE RULE 6 PROVIDES that AN APPLICATION FOR QUARRYING LEASE IS NOT DISPOSED OF WITHIN three MONTHS, THE SAID APPLICATION IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN refused, DOES NOT MAKE THE ORDER OF REJECTION OF THE APPLICATION by VIRTUE OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 6 OF THE RULES, WHICH PROVIDES for DEEMED REJECTION AS A VALID ORDER. THE PURPOSE OF RULE 6 OF the RULES MUST BE CONSTRUED AS A COMMUNICATION TO THE applicant THAT HIS APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF QUARRYING LEASE HAS been REJECTED. FURTHER, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DEEMED rejection ALSO MUST BE UNDERSTOOD AS AN ORDER FOR THE PURPOSE OF filing A REVISION PETITION AS PROVIDED UNDER RULE 61 OF THE RULES. THEREFORE, SO LONG AS THERE IS NO APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE PART of THE COMPETENT OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THE APPLICATION FILED FOR grant OF QUARRYING LEASE, IT IS OPEN TO THE APPLICANT, WHO IS aggrieved BY THE DEEMED REJECTION OF THE APPLICATION, TO challenge THE SAME IN REVISION. ( 7 ) RULE 9 OF THE RULES CASTS A DUTY ON THE COMPETENT OFFICER TO DISPOSE OF THE APPLICATION ON MERITS AFTER MAKING SUCH ENQUIRIES as HE DEEMS FIT. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE NATURE OF POWER conferred ON THE COMPETENT OFFICER UNDER RULE 9 OF THE RULES IS quasi-JUDICIAL IN NATURE, AND THEREFORE, IF THE COMPETENT OFFICER fails TO EXERCISE THAT POWER AND DISPOSE OF THE APPLICATION AFTER complying WITH THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 9 OF THE rules, WITHIN THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE APPLICATION IN terms OF THE MANDATE OF RULE 6, THE ORDER OF DEEMED REJECTION requires TO BE SET ASIDE, SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE COMPETENT officer HAS FAILED TO EXERCISE THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED ON HIM under RULES 6 AND 9 OF THE RULES. FURTHER, IT IS ALSO RELEVANT TO point OUT THAT IF AN ORDER PASSED REJECTING THE APPLICATION ON merits UNDER RULE 9 COULD BE SET ASIDE EITHER ON THE GROUND THAT it IS NOT A SPEAKING ORDER OR FOR ANY OTHER VALID GROUND, I AM unable TO UNDERSTAND AS TO WHY THE ORDER OF DEEMED REJECTION cannot BE CORRECTED IN REVISION. FURTHER, IT IS ALSO RELEVANT TO point OUT THAT IF AN ORDER PASSED REJECTING THE APPLICATION ON merits UNDER RULE 9 COULD BE SET ASIDE EITHER ON THE GROUND THAT it IS NOT A SPEAKING ORDER OR FOR ANY OTHER VALID GROUND, I AM unable TO UNDERSTAND AS TO WHY THE ORDER OF DEEMED REJECTION cannot BE CORRECTED IN REVISION. THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER HAS been COMPLETELY OVER LOOKED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT WHILE passing THE ORDER ANNEXURE-C. THEREFORE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT the ORDER OF DEEMED REJECTION OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE petitioner FOR GRANT OF QUARRYING LEASE IN RESPECT OF THE LAND IN question AND ALSO ORDER ANNEXURE-C DATED 26th JUNE, 1995, passed BY THE 2nd RESPONDENT, ARE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED AND accordingly THEY ARE QUASHED. ( 8 ) IN VIEW OF MY ABOVE CONCLUSION, NORMALLY I SHOULD HAVE DIRECTED THE. COMPETENT OFFICER TO RECONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF the PETITIONER, HOWEVER, SINCE DURING THE PENDENCY OF THIS petition, THE KARNATAKA MINES AND MINERAL CONCESSION RULES, 1994, HAS COME INTO FORCE, THE PETITIONER IS NOW REQUIRED TO MAKE a FRESH APPLICATION AS PROVIDED UNDER RULE 59 OF THE RULES, within 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THIS ORDER. IF SUCH AN application IS MADE BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RULE 59 OF THE RULES, the COMPETENT OFFICER WILL CONSIDER SUCH AN APPLICATION ON MERITS and DISPOSE OF THE SAME WITHIN SIX WEEKS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT of THE APPLICATION. ( 9 ) IN TERMS STATED ABOVE, THIS PETITION IS DISPOSED OF. ( 10 ) SRI L. NARAYANASWAMY, LEARNED HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER, IS PERMITTED TO FILE MEMO OF APPEARANCE IN FOUR WEEKS. --- *** --- .