Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 943 (KAR)

Munikrishna v. State Of Karnataka And Others

2020-06-02

ABHAY S.OKA, RAVI V.HOSMANI

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. Issue notice. The learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents. The matter is taken up for hearing. 3. The petitioner made an application for grant of quarrying lease under the provisions of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short 'the said Rules of 1994'). The application was made on 31st March 2015. As the application was kept pending, the petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court, being Writ Petition No.1540 of 2016 for seeking a writ of mandamus . By an order dated 3rd February 2016, this Court directed the respondents therein to consider the application filed by the petitioner within a period of three months. 4. It is averred in the application that on 30th December 2018, the Senior Geologist after visiting the spot and conducting survey, had submitted a technical report. In terms of the order passed in the writ petition, the application made by the petitioner was not decided. Therefore, a fresh petition was filed on 16th December 2019 again seeking mandamus directing the second respondent to grant lease on the basis of the application dated 31st March 2015. 5. During the pendency of this petition, the learned Additional Government Advocate invited the attention of the Court to an endorsement dated 1st July 2017, by which the application was rejected. As per order dated 20th February 2020 passed on I.A.No.1 of 2020, the interlocutory application was allowed, the petitioner was permitted to incorporate the challenge to the said endorsement. 6. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the endorsement is contrary to the law laid down by this Court by the judgment and order dated 16th August 2019 in W.P.No.10601/2019 and other connected matters. Her submission is that the petitioner became aware of the impugned endorsement during the pendency of the petition and therefore there is no delay. 7. The learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the petition by pointing out that the challenge to the endorsement dated 1st July 2017 is a belated challenge. Secondly, he submitted that no objections as contemplated by sub-rule (5) of Rule 8 of the said Rules of 1994, were not received before the cut-off date. He would, therefore, submit that no interference is called for. 8. We have considered the submissions. Secondly, he submitted that no objections as contemplated by sub-rule (5) of Rule 8 of the said Rules of 1994, were not received before the cut-off date. He would, therefore, submit that no interference is called for. 8. We have considered the submissions. It is true that in terms of sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-A of the said Rules of 1994, as amended with effect from 12th August 2016, all applications for grant of quarrying lease which were pending on 12th August 2016 became ineligible. However, sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B of the said Rules of 1994, as amended, carves out an exception to sub-rule (1) of Rule 8- B of the said Rules of 1994. 9. A perusal of the impugned endorsement shows that there is no consideration on any of the exceptions carved out by sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B. Moreover, it proceeds on an erroneous footing that an application for quarrying lease should have been received before 16th June, 2015. In fact, the cut-off date as mentioned in sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B is 12th August 2016. Therefore, in our view, the case of the petitioner will have to be examined by the second respondent on the issue, whether any of the exceptions carved out in sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B of the said Rules of 1994 are applicable. Therefore, this issue will be governed by the judgment and order dated 16th August 2019 in W.P.No.10601/1019. Paragraph 47 of the said judgment and order reads thus: '47. Therefore, this issue will be governed by the judgment and order dated 16th August 2019 in W.P.No.10601/1019. Paragraph 47 of the said judgment and order reads thus: '47. In short the conclusions can be summarized as under: (a) Rule 8-B of the said Rules, as amended on 12th August, 2016 is constitutionally valid; (b) All pending applications for grant of mining leases/licenses under the said Rules which were filed before 12th August, 2016 and pending on the said date shall become automatically ineligible unless the cases specifically fall within any of the exceptions specifically carved out in clauses (a) to (d) and (d-1) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B; (c) Only those application which were filed before 12th August, 2016 to which any of the clauses (a) to (d) and (d-1) of sub-rule(2) of Rule 8-B applies, can be decided in accordance with the Rules prevailing prior to 12th August, 2016; (d) While deciding the question whether clauses (a) to (d) and (d-1) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B are attracted, if any deeming fiction providing for grant of deemed no objection certificates is expressly available under any of the express provisions of the said Rules such as sub-rule (6) of Rule 8, the same could be applied; (e) In view of express provisions of sub-rule (1) and (2) of Rule 8-B, merely because there is a failure on the part of the authorities to obtain clearances/no objection certificates/reports, the mandate of sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B cannot be ignored and it shall apply with full force inasmuch as by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B, all applications received prior to 12th August, 2016 were made ineligible. The only exception provided is in the sub-rule (2) in case of the applications which are governed by clause (a) to (d) and (d-1) of sub-rule (2). No other exception to sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B has been provided in the said Rules and therefore, cannot be carved out by the Court.' 10. The only exception provided is in the sub-rule (2) in case of the applications which are governed by clause (a) to (d) and (d-1) of sub-rule (2). No other exception to sub-rule (1) of Rule 8-B has been provided in the said Rules and therefore, cannot be carved out by the Court.' 10. In view of the direction contained in clause (i) of paragraph 49 of the said judgment and order, we dispose of this petition by passing the following order: (i) The impugned endorsement dated 1st July 2017 is quashed and set aside; (ii) We direct the respondents to consider the application dated 31st March 2015 made by the petitioner for grant of quarrying lease only in the context of applicability of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B of the said Rules of 1994; (iii) Appropriate orders shall be passed by the respondents within a period of four months from today; (iv) In the light of what is held in paragraph 47 of the aforesaid judgment and order which is quoted above, the petition is disposed of on the above terms.