Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1124 (KAR)

Madappa v. State Of Karnataka

2018-11-19

DINESH MAHESHWARI, S.SUJATHA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Dinesh Maheshwari, J. - Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP appearing for the respondents, it appears just and proper to dispose of this petition at this stage itself. 2. The relevant aspects of the present matter are that the petitioner had made an application for grant of quarrying lease/licence for quarrying building stone over an extent of 3.00 acres of land in survey No.6 at Bettahalli village, Malur Taluk, Kolar District, on 03.05.2006. The respondent No.4 issued the endorsement dated 20.06.2017/18.12.2017 rejecting the application made by the petitioner. The petitioner preferred revision application against such endorsement. The Revisional Authority, by the order dated 02.02.2018, directed the authorities concerned to reconsider the application made by the petitioner in accordance with law. On such direction by the Revisional Authority, the endorsement dated 24.03.2018 has been issued, again rejecting the application made by the petitioner. 3. The Revisional Authority while disapproving the rejection of the application made by the petitioner directed in its order dated 02.02.2018 as under: "I, Sri B. Panduranga, Joint Director, Mines and Geology Department, South Range, Mysuru and Revising Authority, in exercise of power conferred on me under Rule 53 (4) of KMMC Rules, 1994 and Govt. Circular No.CI:180 MMN:2006, dated 24.11.2006, keeping in mind the availability of mineral and providing employment and developmental activities of the area in question, the Revision Petition is allowed. Since different opinions have been expressed by Revenue Officials, it is directed to carry out a Joint Inspection of the Quarry Lease applied area afresh meticulously, in terms of Amendment Rules to Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 and Amendment Notification. The Competent Authority is free to take decision in accordance with law, so as to give effect to the Rules in the light of local problems/situation. Hence, Revision Petition No.152/2017-18 is allowed." 4. However, in the impugned endorsement dated 24.03.2018, the Senior Geologist has referred to the submissions of the Assistant Commissioner, Kolar and has again proceeded to reject the application while observing as under: "Whereas, the Asst. Commissioner, Kolar stated that a Joint Inspection for the second time has been carried out by the higher Officers over and above his rank and submitted a Report to the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar and hence, there is no necessity to carry out another Joint Inspection in respect of Quarry Lease applied area individually, since he becomes lower rank officers. Commissioner, Kolar stated that a Joint Inspection for the second time has been carried out by the higher Officers over and above his rank and submitted a Report to the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar and hence, there is no necessity to carry out another Joint Inspection in respect of Quarry Lease applied area individually, since he becomes lower rank officers. Further, as per Letter cited in Reference (2) above, the Joint Inspection carried out by Addl. Deputy Commissioner and his team may be adopted. Hence, a Letter has been directly sent to the Joint Director, Southern Range, Mysuru. In this behalf, the Joint Director, Southern Range, Mysuru was requested to issue directions. Further, the Revising Authority directed to dispose the files in accordance with law as the Senior Geologist himself is the Competent Authority and that the same can be disposed exercising powers vested in him as per Letter cited in Reference (3) above. In view of the opinion expressed by the higher Officers, over and above the jurisdictional Asst. Commissioner upon carrying out a spot as per Letter cited in Reference (2) above by the Asst. Commissioner, the Quarry lease Application filed by you is hereby rejected as per Rules 6 (2) of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994." 5. It is difficult to approve the approach of the authority concerned in this matter. Once the Revisional Authority has issued directions for consideration of the application in accordance with law, after carrying out joint inspection afresh, the application could not have been rejected on the suggestions as made, with reference to any previous inspection. It is also not forthcoming, if the authority concerned has duly taken note of the requirements of Rules and the orders passed by this Court in similar matters so as to deal with the application in accordance with law. 6. For what has been observed hereinabove, the impugned endorsement dated 24.03.2018 is set aside and the matter stands restored for reconsideration of the Senior Geologist, Department of Mines and Geology, Kolar District, in accordance with law and at the earliest, preferably within 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 7. The petition stands disposed of.