Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1208 (KAR)

S. T. Prasad v. State of Karnataka

2023-10-11

KRISHNA S.DIXIT, PRASANNA B.VARALE

body2023
ORDER : (Prasanna B. Varale, CJ.) Petitioner, a quarrying lease aspirant is knocking at the doors of Writ Court with the following two principal prayers: A) Issue a writ of Certiorari or a writ of like nature quashing the endorsement dated 23.10.2017 vide No.MDG/SGS/SQL.A701/2017-18/3810-3811 Annexure-X and The order passed by the 3rd respondent revisional authority dismissing the revision petition R.P.26/201-2020 dated 13.08.2020 vide: No.DMG:JD:Davamai:Revision:2020-21/840 Annexure-Zd. B) issue a writ of mandamus or direction of like nature directing the 4th Respondent Authority to execute the quarrying lease deed in favour of the petitioner in pursuance of the notification dated 08.04.2011 vide No/DMG/CMD/NOTIFICATION/01/2011-12 Annexure-F." 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners highlighting the material facts as concisely put in the Synopsis seeks to falter the impugned order made by the 3rd respondent - Revisional Authority in dismissing his revision petition. The relevant part of the revisional order, a copy whereof avails at Annexure-X, reads as under VERNACULAR MATTTER The counsel submits that the version of the Revisional Authority that the condition No.2 as specified in Rule 8 (5) of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 as amended from time to time, has not been complied with is demonstrably wrong and therefore, the order is liable to be voided and a direction needs to be issued for the fresh consideration of the subject application on merits, in accordance with law. 3. Learned Additional Government Advocate, on request appearing for the officials respondents opposes the petition making submission in justification of the impugned order. He contends that the Notification dated 8.04.2011, a copy whereof avails at Annexure-F issued in favour of the petitioner had specifically stipulated a period of one year for the commencement of quarrying operations and admittedly that having not happened no relief can be granted to him. He also highlights that the very statutory scheme itself is of 5 years and that being the statutory policy nothing can be done in the matter. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the submission of learned AGA. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the submission of learned AGA. The condition No.1 & 2(i) stipulated in the Notification dated 08.04.2011 reads as under: "1) In pursuance of rule 27 of the KMMC Rules 1094 sanction is hereby accorded for Grant/first renewal/second renewal of a quarry lease/licence for quarrying Building stone for 5 years to S.T.Prasad over an extent of 15-00 acres of Revenue land on in Sy.No.192 of E.Thimmasandra village and Shidlagatta Taluk CHIKKBALLAPURA District as per the enclosed sketch. ........ 2(i) The lease/licence would be determined if the lessee or the holder of the licence fails to commence quarrying operations within one year from the date of executing of the lease/licence." There is absolutely no material on record to substantiate the compliance of this condition incorporated in the statutory power. 5. The vehement submission learned counsel for the petitioner that the period so stipulated has been elongated and that the commencement of the lease is undertaken within the said extension, does not merit countenance in the absence of petitioner showing the statutory power from the scheme of 1994 Rules in exercise of which such extension can be granted. Learned AGA is more than justified in relying upon a decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court which supports this view in Writ Petition No.50678/2019 (GM-MM-S) between I.Shivappa v. State of Karnataka disposed off on 30.03.2021, it is observed as under: "7. A perusal of Annexure-C would indicate that a quarry plan was issued on 21.02.2014. It is thereafter the petitioner had applied for the Environment Clearance on 13.01.2016. Thus the quarry plan having been received on 21.02.2014 it was expected of the petitioner to have applied for the Environment Clearance immediately. There is no justification for the petitioner to have applied for the same nearly after two years on 13.01.2016, more so when the Environment Clearance certificate had to be obtained and furnished within 90 days after issuance of the notification at Annexure-B dated 22.08.2013. 8. The application at Annexure-D dated 13.01.2016 was laid beyond the period of 90 days from the date of issuance of notification, as also from the date of issuance of quarry plan. 8. The application at Annexure-D dated 13.01.2016 was laid beyond the period of 90 days from the date of issuance of notification, as also from the date of issuance of quarry plan. Thus, in our considered opinion, there is no bonafides and/or due diligence expressed by the petitioner in obtaining the Environment Clearance. It, therefore, does not lie for the petitioner to have written a letter on 4.7.2019 seeking for extension of time, that too after a period of nearly 3½ years from the date of submission of the application for the Environment Clearance and nearly six years from the issuance of the notification. Apart from the above, the notification having been issued on 22.08.2013, the lease proposed was for the period of five years from that date, thereby, the lease would have come to an end on 21.08.2018. The letter of the petitioner seeking for extension having been issued on 4.07.2019 is also after the expiry of the lease and as such, the consideration of this contention would also remain academic." In the above circumstances, this petition being devoid of merits is liable to be and accordingly dismissed.