JUDGMENT : N.V. ANJARIA, C.J. 1. The two captioned petitions involve the same subject matter. Not only the facts are common, but the issues are similar and identical and the parties are the same. The third is a contempt petition arising out of the proceedings of Writ Petition No.9037 of 2022. In that view, all the three petitions were heard together to be treated for disposal simultaneously by this common judgment. 2. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. S.S. Naganand with learned advocate Mr. S. Kumar in both the petitions for the petitioner as well as in the contempt petition for the complainant, learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar for the respondents in the writ petitions and learned Additional Government Advocate Mr. Naveen Chandrashekar for the respondents in the contempt proceedings. 3. Writ Petition No.9037 of 2022 was filed by the petitioner- M/s. Prabhavathi Stone Crushers first in point of time, wherein the prayer was made to set aside order dated 31.03.2022 passed by respondent No.3-the District Regulation of Stone Crusher and Licensing Authority. Thereby the Licence Form-C granted to the petitioner came to be cancelled. Stated in nutshell, the case of the petitioner in this petition was that licence was granted to the petitioner for manufacture of Aggregates in respect of the land bearing Survey No.117/2 admeasuring 2 Acres situated at Alpahalli Village, Pandavapura Taluka, Mandya District. The cancellation of the licence was based on the ground that the property was located within 100 meters from the Major District Road. 3.1 The petitioner stated that on 15.05.2017, it made a request for grant of stone crusher licence filling the necessary Form-A by giving the requisite details and furnishing the relevant documents. The Licensing Authority and other Authorities namely, the Senior Geologist of the Department of Mines and Geology, the Tahsildar of the Revenue Department, the Range Forest Officer of the Forest Department and the Environment Officer of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board conducted a spot inspection. The report was submitted recommending that the property in question in respect of which the licence was asked for by the petitioner was suitable for declaration as safer zone for the purpose of grant of Form-C to establish the stone crusher unit: 3.1.1 The Licensing Authority thereafter considered the report and declared the area to be safer zone as per the Notification dated 14.12.2017. It is stated that thereafter the Forest Authorities granted approval including the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board which gave Consent for Operation to commence production of Aggregates at the land property. It is stated by the petitioner that Rs.5.5 crores was invested in establishing the stone crusher unit. 3.1.2 A show cause notice dated 23.04.2021 came to be issued by the Competent Authority stating that the place for which the licence was granted to the petitioner was at a distance of 73 meters from the Major District Road and thus within 100 meters, it was violative of Section 6 (1)(b) of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 . The petitioner replied to the said show cause notice on 06.05.2021. 3.1.3 The petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.734 of 2020, in which it was held that once the land is declared as safer zone and licence was granted on that basis, subsequently the Licensing Authority has no jurisdiction to cancel such declaration. It appears that subsequently, the order dated 31.07.2021 was passed by the Authority cancelling the licence on the ground of the distance which was claimed to be less than 100 meters from the Major District Road, which decision came to be challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No.15339 of 2021. This court remanded the matter so as to afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which was not given while passing the order dated 31.07.2021. 3.1.4 It is next stated that the competent officials of the State Government again obtained a report under Section 9(2)(a) of the Act. It appears that the fresh report suggested that the distance was 35 meters. The petitioner therefore contended that the Authority acted on the basis of inconsistent and contradictory reports to cancel the licence although at the time of initial grant of licence in the year 2017, the report was obtained and the measurement showed that the land of the petitioner was outside the peripheral boundary of 100 meters. 3.2 The petitioner contended that safer zone in respect of the land property where the crusher unit was established was declared as back as on 14.12.2017 and the show cause notice was issued in the year 2021, which is after a gap of five years. It was contended that for the subsequent turn around by the Authorities, there is no factual basis. It was contended that for the subsequent turn around by the Authorities, there is no factual basis. The fresh report which was submitted categorically stated that the distance between the property and the Major District Road was 2 kilometers. Subsequently, it was shown to be 35 meters to be falling within 100 meters which is factually incorrect and erroneous, it was submitted: 3.2.1 The petitioner relied on the provisions of Section 6(3) of the Act to submit that in any case, the subsequent development will not constitute a ground to cancel the notification declaring the area to be safer zone. It was contended that when the licence was granted way back in the year 2017 after verifying the details and all the competent authorities having given necessary approvals, it was not liable to be recalled. 3.3 In the aforesaid Writ Petition No.9037 of 2022, interim order dated 28.04.2022 came to be passed by this Court. The order, in its relevant part, reads as under: "In the order dated 31.07.2021 at Annexure-K, the authority has opined that the distance between the land in question and the District Major road is about 73 Mtrs. However there is another report dated 27.10.2021, wherein it is stated that the distance is about 35 Mtrs. Therefore, there is some confusion even in the mind of the respondent authorities. The matter requires re-consideration and factual information is required to be secured. In terms of the amended provision of Section 6 (1)(b) of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 , the prohibited distance is 50 mtrs. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made out a prima facie case. Consequently, there shall be an ad-interim order of stay of the operation and execution of the impugned order dated 31.03.2022 at Annexure-A, till the next date of hearing." 3.3.1 It is the aforesaid order which was brought under the contempt jurisdiction of this court by filing CCC No.48 of 2023. 4. Consequently, there shall be an ad-interim order of stay of the operation and execution of the impugned order dated 31.03.2022 at Annexure-A, till the next date of hearing." 3.3.1 It is the aforesaid order which was brought under the contempt jurisdiction of this court by filing CCC No.48 of 2023. 4. During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the very petitioner had an occasion to file Writ Petition No.4010 of 2024 wherein the prayer was advanced for issuance of writ against the respondent-authorities to direct them to treat the Licence Form-C given to the petitioner under the provisions of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 to be deemed to have been granted for a period of twenty years in view of coming into force of Section 5 (2) as amended by Act No.28 of 2020. The basic premise for seeking the prayer in the second writ petition to direct the respondents to consider Form-C Licence No.34/2018-19/2806 dated 02.02.2019 granted to the petitioner was that deeming provision to be deemed to have been granted about period of twenty years under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Amended Act, would operate. 5. Having noticed the facts, two aspects emerge to be addressed. Firstly, when the safer zone was declared in the year 2017 for granting the land property to the petitioner for the purpose of establishing the stone crusher unit, the necessary statutory conditions were satisfied or not. Second is regarding deemed continuation of the licence for twenty years from the date of original grant. Second aspect would surpass and override the first if the licence is in existence and valid on the date of coming into force of Section 5(2) as amended. 5.1 Section 6 of the Act which deals with conditions for declaration of safer zone may be looked into. Second aspect would surpass and override the first if the licence is in existence and valid on the date of coming into force of Section 5(2) as amended. 5.1 Section 6 of the Act which deals with conditions for declaration of safer zone may be looked into. The Section reads as under: " Section 6 - Conditions for declaring Safer Zone:- The declaration of safer zone for stone crushers under this Act, shall be subject to the following conditions, namely: (1) The safer zone shall not be located within: - (a) Two Hundred meter from the limits of the national highways or State Highways; (b) One Hundred meter from the limits of major district roads and fifty meters from the limits of other roads; (c) Five hundred meter from revenue village, temples, schools; (d) The boundary of Municipal Corporations, City Municipal Corporation, Town Municipal Council. "Explanation: For the purpose of this Act, any habitation, school, temples or road coming up subsequent to declaration of safer zone shall not affect the operation or continuance of such declaration and shall not affect any extension of licence under section 5." 5.2 One of the conditions is that in order that the land is in safer zone, it shall not be located inter alia within 100 meters from the limits of Major District Roads, as per Section 6(1)(b) above. It is an undisputed fact that when the Licence Form-C was granted to the petitioner in the year 2017 as per the Notification dated 14.12.2017, the factum of distance was verified after obtaining the report and it was duly noticed that the land did not fall within the peripheral range of 100 meters from the Major District Road. 5.3 The notification which was then issued may be usefully extracted to be read as under, "GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District, Mandya 571401, Karnataka State Ph.No.08232-224600(0) Website: www.mandya.nic.in _______________________________________ No.Gani/Bu.V./C.R./CrusherASu/2017-18 Date: 14.12.2017 NOTIFICATION Sub: Issuance of Notification for Safer Zone for establishment of Stone Crusher Unit under Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crusher Unit and Licensing (Amendment) Act 2013 - reg. Ref: 1) Proceedings of the Meeting of District Regulation of Stone Crusher and Licensing Authority held on 08.12.2017: 1) Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crusher (Amendment) Act 2013 dated: 26.12.2013: With reference to the above subject, the following persons have requested to declare their patta lands as Safer Zone for establishing Stone Crusher Unit and in this background under Section 6(3) of the Act, the Revenue, Department of Mines and Geology, Forest Department and Environment Officer of Karnataka State Pollution Control Board have conducted the Joint Inspection of the areas and submitted the report and as per the report, under Section 8 of Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crusher Unit (Amendment) Act 2013 the matter was discussed in the meeting held on 08.12.2017 under the chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner. In the said Meeting approval was given and accepted to declare the areas as Safer Zone. Therefore, under Section 6(3) of Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crusher Unit and Licensing (Amendment) Act 2013 the following areas are declared as Safer Zone. The details of the approved safer zone areas are as hereunder: S. No. Name of Applicant and address Taluk Village Sy. No. Extent Acre Gunta Type of land 02 M/s Prabhavathi Stone Crusher, Prop. K.S. Narayana son of late K.V.Srinivasego wda, Alpahalli Village, Chinakurali Hobli, Pandavapura Taluk. P andava pura A lpahaIli 1 116/2, 17/2 2 00 Patta land The approval has been given in the meeting to declare the aforesaid 10 areas as Safer Zone for establishment of Stone Crusher Unit, this Notification is issued subject to the conditions that to follow the conditions imposed under Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crusher Unit and Licensing (Amendment) Act 2013 and directions and guidelines issued by the Government from time to time and to establish the Stone Crusher Unit as per the rules of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board. Sd/- Deputy Commissioner and Chairman District Regulation of Stone Crusher & Licensing Authority, Mandya Dist. Mandya." 5.4 It may be further noticed that as per the Explanation of Section 6 above, events subsequent to declaration of safer zone would not affect the operation or continuance of the declaration of safer zone and it shall not further affect any extension of licence under Section 5. There is no gainsaying that the petitioner would be entitled to get the benefit of operational ambit of the aforesaid extension. There is no gainsaying that the petitioner would be entitled to get the benefit of operational ambit of the aforesaid extension. 5.5 Furthermore, sub-section (2) of Section 5, as amended by Act No.28 of 2020, provided as under, "(2) Subject to payment of such annual regulation fee as may be prescribed, all existing crusher licenses granted before the commencement of Karnataka Stone Crusher Regulation (Amendment) Act, 2020 shall be deemed to have been granted for a period of twenty years from the date of original grant and shall be extended accordingly." 5.6 Under the aforesaid provision which contains a deeming fiction to provide that all existing crusher licences granted before the commencement of the Amendment Act shall be deemed to have been granted for a period of twenty years from the date of original grant and that, it shall be accordingly extended. Recapitulating that in respect of the land Survey No.117/2 admeasuring 2 Acres at Alpahalli Village, Pandavapura Taluka, Mandya District which is granted to the petitioner for stone crushing unit, it was declared to be in safer zone by the Notification dated 14.12.2017. 5.7 After issuing Safer Zone Notification covering the land in 2017, the Licence Form-C was granted by the Deputy Commissioner-the Licensing Authority on 02.02.2019. Before that, the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board issued to the petitioner the Consent for Operation. The said licence was sought to be cancelled by the Authorities by taking a stand that it was located within a distance of 100 meters of the Major District Road and the order dated 31.03.2022 was passed cancelling the licence which order was challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No.9037 of 2022 as stated above. The court passed the interim order and stayed that order. In view of stay of the order, the licence of the petitioner stood restored and continued to be valid. 5.8 The petitioner is entitled to receive the benefit of deemed extension of licence as per the amended Section 5(2) for a period of twenty years from the date of the original licence. The petitioner's licence was in existence and valid to attract the beneficial deeming provision under Section 5(2) of the Act. This aspect would operate outweighingly. 6. The relief in Writ Petition No.9037 of 2022 has already worked out for the petitioner as interim order was granted and it has been in operation continuing the validity of licence. The petitioner's licence was in existence and valid to attract the beneficial deeming provision under Section 5(2) of the Act. This aspect would operate outweighingly. 6. The relief in Writ Petition No.9037 of 2022 has already worked out for the petitioner as interim order was granted and it has been in operation continuing the validity of licence. Even otherwise, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in view of the Explanation to Section 6 of the Act. The order dated 31.03.2022 passed by respondent No.3-the District Regulation of Stone Crusher and Licensing Authority is liable to be set aside. It is set aside. 6.1 Writ Petition No.4010 of 2024 deserves to be allowed. It is declared that the petitioner is deemed to have been granted extension for its licence for a period of twenty years under Section 5(2) of the Amended Act No.28 of 2020. Consequently, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to treat Form-C Licence No.34/2018-19/2806 dated 02.02.2019 granted to the petitioner to have been extended for twenty years from the said date. 7. Both the petitions stand allowed in the aforesaid terms. The contempt petition will not survive.