ORDER : Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Issue notice to the respondents. The learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents. Considering the narrow controversy involved, the petition is forthwith taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner has been granted a licence under Section 3 of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 (for short ‘the said Act of 2011’) which is valid up to 31st march 2024. By the impugned notice dated 31st December 2019, the petitioner had been called upon to shift the crushing unit. In the notice, reliance is placed on clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act of 2011 by contending that the site of the crushing unit is within the distance of 100 metres from a major district road. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that now, Section 6 of the said Act of 2011 cannot be invoked since the licence has been granted after declaring the safer zone and there is no power under the said Act of 2011 to direct the licence holder to shift the crushing unit. 4. The learned Government Advocate defends the action by relying on clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act of 2011 and submits that under sub-section (1) of Section 6-A, no licence can be issued to a stone crusher unit outside the safer zone and in the present case, the location of the crusher is outside the safer zone. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions. Under sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the said Act of 2011, once an application for grant or renewal of the licence under Section 3 of the said Act of 2011 is made, a joint inspection of the location of the crusher unit is required to be made. Thereafter, the safer zone is to be declared and the Licensing Authority has to issue a certificate of consent of safer zone to the applicant. If the area proposed in the application is not declared as a safer zone, the Licensing Authority is enjoined to reject the application. In the present case, after declaration of the safer zone, the application has been granted and the licence has been issued. If the area proposed in the application is not declared as a safer zone, the Licensing Authority is enjoined to reject the application. In the present case, after declaration of the safer zone, the application has been granted and the licence has been issued. Therefore, now the State cannot fall back on the provisions of Section 6 of the said Act of 2011 which lays down the manner in which the safer zone for the stone crusher units can be declared. 6. The learned Government Advocate relies on clause (vi) of sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the said Act of 2011. Firstly, clause (vi) confers power to suspend or cancel the licence. It is not the power to direct shifting of the crusher unit. Moreover, the said power can be exercised only in case of non-compliance of the conditions of the licence. In the impugned order, it is not the allegation made by the State Government that there is a non-compliance of the terms and conditions of the licence. Perhaps if according to the respondents, the licence granted to the petitioner is not in accordance with the provisions of the said Act of 2011 or Rules framed there under, possibly the power under Section 10 of the said Act of 2011 can be invoked for cancellation of the licence but, that also after giving an opportunity of being heard to the licensee. 7. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same will have to be set aside and the petitioner cannot be prevented from carrying on the activities on the basis of the licence granted (Annexure-C) so long as the same is in subsistence. Accordingly, we pass the following order: (i) The impugned order dated 31st December 2019 (Annexure-A) is set aside only on the ground that the respondents had no power to issue such an order. (ii) This order will not prevent the respondents from initiating proceedings in accordance with law. (iii) The writ petition is partly allowed on the above terms. (iv) The pending interlocutory application stands disposed of.