Judgment :- V.G. Sabhahit, J. These writ petitions are filed being aggrieved by the order dated 3-3-2009 passed by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Uttara Kannada, averring that the petitioner-Companies have been directed to remove the iron ore stocked in the premises referred to in the order as the same is hazardous to the environment, failing which, an action would be taken for confiscation of the said iron ore and sold the same in a public auction. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner-Companies are actively involved in the process of transportation, stocking and export of mining produce in the State of Karnataka and Goa and are fully professionals and involved in the business for the past several years in the State of Karnataka spreading in the regions of Uttara Kannada, Bellary, Chitradurga and Tumkur. They made necessary applications before the Competent Authorities in the State of Karnataka viz., respondent 2-Department of Mines and Geology, Department of Industries and Commerce, respondent 3-Pollution Control Board, Deputy Commissioner, Jurisdictional Police Office, Regional Transport Office and other local bodies and after obtaining necessary permission and licence strictly in accordance with law, the petitioner-Companies are doing the business in the process of transportation, stocking, dumping and loading to the consigneeship in the harbour. There was no complaint or objection either from the department or from the general public against the petitioner-Companies since the time of their involvement in the business of transportation and mining activities. It is further averred that the petitioner-Companies are lawfully doing the business for the past several years in the District of Uttara Kannada and the headquarters is provided with harbour port built and established by the Union of India and another Harbour Port at Belkeri nearby Karwar. The petitioner-Companies are involved in stocking and transportation of iron ore and permitted with licence granted to them by the competent jurisdictional authorities to transport the iron ore nearby port to facilitate and transport to the consignees, whenever it is made available as per the schedule transportation by ship. It is not possible to excavate and stock the iron ore round the season and the business of transportation is restricted for a period of six months. It is not possible to excavate and stock the iron ore round the season and the business of transportation is restricted for a period of six months. It is further averred that the petitioner-Companies made applications before the respondents-Authorities and obtained necessary permission from the Competent Authorities and the local authorities issued no objection letters to the petitioner-Companies for stocking iron ore in Sy. No.12A/2 of Hattikere Village, Ankola Taluk and in Sy.No.504 of Algeri Village, Ankola Taluk. It is averred that though the petitioner-Companies have fulfilled the requirement in law in stocking the iron ore, the impugned order has been passed directing the petitioner-Companies to remove the iron ore stocked in the respective lands, failing which, the iron ore would be confiscated and sold in a public auction by order dated 3-3-2009. Therefore, the petitioner-Companies have preferred these writ petitions. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents -Authorities. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner-Companies reiterated the averments made in the writ petition and submitted that though the petitioner-Companies have fulfilled the requirement of law in stocking iron ore, the order dated 3-3-2009 has been passed without jurisdiction and is unsustainable and liable to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents-Authorities submitted, that the petitioner-Companies have been storing the iron ore contrary to law, which is hazardous to the life of public residing in the locality. The impugned order has been passed in accordance with law. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petitions and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 5. We have given careful consideration to the contentions urged by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and scrutinised the material on record. 6. The impugned order has been passed in accordance with law. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petitions and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 5. We have given careful consideration to the contentions urged by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and scrutinised the material on record. 6. A perusal of the impugned order would clearly show that the applications filed by the petitioner-Companies seeking for permission to stock iron ore have been rejected and on 26-2-2009 a joint inspection of the place has been made where the iron ore has been stocked by the Director of Mines and Geology, Deputy Commissioner, Uttara Kannada, Superintendent of Police, Karwar, Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Port Director, Transport Officer and Officer of Karnataka State Environment Pollution, it was noticed that the place where the iron ore has been stored by the petitioner-Companies without complying with the environmental pollution control order and wherefore the order has been passed to remove the iron ore stocked within three days from the date of notice, failing which, it is ordered that the said iron ore would be confiscated and sold in a public auction. 7. The scrutiny of the material on record would clearly show that the iron ore stocked in the respective lands is hazardous to the life of the public and would cause environmental pollution. Therefore, the impugned order is passed directing the petitioners to remove the iron ore within three days from the date of notice, failing which, an action would be taken for confiscation of the said iron ore and sold in a public auction. In view of the above said material on record, we are of the opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any error or illegality as to call for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, we hold that there is no merit in these writ petitions and pass the following: Order The writ petitions are dismissed.