JUDGMENT Abhay Shreeniwas Oka; CJ. - Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. 2. The petitioners made separate applications for grant of permission for removal of Sand Bars and transportation of ordinary sand in Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ). The applications were made in the year 2015. The applications were placed before the District Sand Supervisory Committee in its meeting held on 30th October 2015. The applications were divided into categories A to D. According to the case of the petitioners, their applications fell in the category C. The minutes of the meeting (Annexure F) recorded that, it was resolved not to reject the applications received under C category and the same were ordered to be kept for reconsideration. 3. There are orders at Annexures G, H, J, K, L and M which are more or less identical, by which, in view of the decision taken in the District Sand Supervisory Committee on 30th October 2015, the applications were rejected on the ground that the petitioners did not produce the documents for showing that they have done mining previously by obtaining the sand mining contract or temporary permit. 4. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is basically that, the applications were not considered on merits. Secondly, he relied upon sub-Rule (5) of Rule 31-U of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short 'the said Rules of 1994') as it existed prior to its amendment. In terms of proviso to sub-Rule (5), it was provided that, nothing in Chapter IV-B of the said Rules of 1994 will apply for sand quarrying within the areas of the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) and the said applications shall be disposed of in accordance with the Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India on 8th November 2011 and as amended from time to time. As per the said Office Memorandum, the proposals for removal of sand Bars for Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) area were to be placed before a Committee headed by a District Collector, consisting of seven members. The Office Memorandum dated 8th November 2011 provides that based on the recommendation of the Committee, the District Collector may permit removal of sand subject to conditions mentioned therein. 5. The Office Memorandum dated 8th November 2011 provides that based on the recommendation of the Committee, the District Collector may permit removal of sand subject to conditions mentioned therein. 5. The prayer in this petition is for quashing the orders rejecting the applications made by the petitioners. There is Statement of Objections filed by the respondents, in which, it is contended that, even for the subsequent three years, permissions for removal of sand Bars as per Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) area have been already granted and therefore, the applications of the petitioners cannot be considered. It is reiterated that the applications were considered by the District Sand Monitoring Committee in the light of the Office Memorandum dated 8th November 2011 and thereafter their applications were rejected. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that, the applications were never placed before the Committee chaired by the District Collector (Deputy Commissioner) having seven members as per the Office Memorandum dated 8th November 2011 and the District Sand Committee had no jurisdiction to deal with the applications. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that, now, no relief can be granted to the petitioners, as, for subsequent three years, permits have already been issued for removal of sand bars. 8. We have considered the submissions. When the applications were made by the petitioners, the same were governed by the proviso to sub-rule (5) of Rule 31-U of the said Rules of 1994 and therefore, the said applications were required to be decided not as per the provisions of the said Rules of 1994, but as per the Office Memorandum dated 8th November 2011. A perusal of the Office Memorandum dated 8th November 2011 shows that the applications ought to have been placed before a Committee headed by the District Collector (Deputy Commissioner) of seven members, consisting of at least one representative each from scientific or technical Institute, the local communities like fisher folk and the local civil society. 9. In the present case, even in the Statement of objections, it is not stated that the Committee before which the applications were placed on 30th October 2015 was constituted as per the Office Memorandum dated 8th November 2011. Therefore, the applications were not placed before a Committee constituted in terms of Office Memorandum dated 8th November 2011. 9. In the present case, even in the Statement of objections, it is not stated that the Committee before which the applications were placed on 30th October 2015 was constituted as per the Office Memorandum dated 8th November 2011. Therefore, the applications were not placed before a Committee constituted in terms of Office Memorandum dated 8th November 2011. The applications made by the petitioners have been purportedly rejected on the basis of recommendation of the said District Sand Monitoring Committee. The said Committee had no power to deal with the applications of the petitioners. 10. A perusal of the said Rules of 1994 as amended on 12th August 2016 show that as per Rule 31-ZB, the disposal of applications for permission for removal of sand bars in Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) area has to be made as per Office Memorandum dated 8th November 2011 as amended from time to time. The provision for auction is only as regards disposal of sand bars in non-Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) areas. Therefore, the applications made by the petitioners which were erroneously rejected will have to be considered afresh. Even if the applications cannot be considered for this year, the same should be considered for the next year. 11. Accordingly, we dispose of the petition by passing the following order:- [i] Annexures F (only in so far as the petitioners applications are concerned),G, H, J, K, L and M are hereby quashed and set aside; [ii] We direct that the applications made by the petitioners shall be placed before a Committee constituted as per the Official Memorandum dated 8th November 2011; [iii] If the applications cannot be considered on merits for the year 2019-20, the same shall be considered for the year 2020-21; [iv] Needless to add that the petitioners will have to produce necessary documents to establish their eligibility. [v] We direct the Committee constituted under the Official Memorandum dated 8th November 2011 to decide the applications afresh, as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with law. [vi] The petition is allowed on the above terms.