Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 57 (KAR)

Krishna Stone Crushing Industries v. State of Karnataka

2022-01-12

RITU RAJ AWASTHI, SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

body2022
JUDGMENT Ritu Raj Awasthi, CJ. - Heard. 2. The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned show cause notices dated 09.07.2021 as contained in Annexures-A1 to A17. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they have been issued the crushing licence to carry out the crushing activities and by way of the impugned notices, the same has been stopped which cannot be done. The action of the respondent No.5 is arbitrary, wrong and illegal. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the said notices have been issued temporarily stopping the crushing activities in order to facilitate the detailed scientific study by CSIR Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research. It is not a permanent stoppage of crushing activities. The petitioners, instead of filing their reply to the impugned notices, have approached this Court. 5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents and gone through the records. 6. The perusal of the impugned notices clearly indicates that only temporary stoppage of crushing activities till getting scientific report by conducting trial blasting in order to ascertain the effect to the safety of KRS dam for conducting mining operations have been issued. The petitioners can file their reply if they want to carry out the crushing activities saying that they are not using the blasting technique in the crushing activities and that reply may be considered by the concerned competent authorities in accordance with law and Study report of CSIR and thereafter, take an appropriate decision. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners agrees that the petitioners may be provided an opportunity to file their reply to the impugned notices that may be considered by the concerned respondent and appropriate orders may be passed. Learned Additional Government Advocate has no objection to the same. 8. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners agrees that the petitioners may be provided an opportunity to file their reply to the impugned notices that may be considered by the concerned respondent and appropriate orders may be passed. Learned Additional Government Advocate has no objection to the same. 8. In view of the above, with the consent of the parties' counsel, the Writ Petition is finally disposed of at this stage with liberty to the petitioners to file their reply to the impugned show cause notices within a period of ten days from today and in case, any such reply is filed to the notices along with the copy of the order passed today, the concerned competent authority/respondent No.3 may consider the reply made by the petitioners to the impugned notices and take appropriate decision in accordance with law expeditiously within a period of three weeks thereafter.