Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1039 (KAR)

SHANTHU GURUM v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2015-09-03

B.V.NAGARATHNA, SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE

body2015
ORDER Mr.R.G.Kolle, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, strenuously, argues that there was no justification on the part of the authorities for not issuing licence for granite operation in respect of the patta land of the writ petitioner. 2. Mr.Y.H.Vijay Kumar, learned additional government advocate, submits that there have been amendments in the previous granite mining lease providing that there could not be any lease in respect of lesser than 2.2 acres of land. 3. Mr.Kolle is right in pointing out that two expressions are used in the rules lease and licence. It is expected that Legislature would not have used two different expressions, if they were to convey the same meaning. Mr.Kolle submits that there is no minimum prescribed area for issuing the licence. He, also, submits that the writ petitioner wants to operate granite excavation in his own patta land. All that he needs is permission from the government. 4. The petitioner is not seeking grant of a lease. He is seeking a licence for quarrying in his pattal and. Two different expressions – ‘lease’ and ‘licence’ are used in the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 [for short, the Rules]. The two words are defined in sub-rule (j) and (k) respectively to the Rule 2 of the said Rules. 5. It is expected that the Legislature has expressed two different expressions – ‘lease’ and ‘licence’ consciously. When in relation to the same subject matter, different words are used in the same statute, there is a presumption that they are not used in the same sense. A construction deriving support from differing phraseology in different sections of a statute imply that they have a different import and they are not used in the same sense. 6. Mr Kolle is right in submitting that there is no minimum prescription of area for issue of a licence for granite excavation in respect of pattalands. 7. We feel that when there is no prescription of a minimum area for grant of licence for granite excavation in the pattaland, the authorities were in error in refusing to grant the licence to the petitioner on the presumption that the area was less than 2.2. acres. 8. We, therefore, feel that the grievance of the petitioner is genuine. 9. We, thus, allow the writ petition and direct the authorities to issue licence in favour of the writ petitioner immediately. 10. acres. 8. We, therefore, feel that the grievance of the petitioner is genuine. 9. We, thus, allow the writ petition and direct the authorities to issue licence in favour of the writ petitioner immediately. 10. We make no order as to costs.