Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
M/S. PRISM INFRA TECH, BY ITS PROPRIETOR SADIQ V/S STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPTD. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, BENGALURU & OTHERS, decided on Monday, October 9, 2017.
[ In the High Court of Karnataka, Writ Petition No. 44610 of 2017 (GM-MM-S). ] 09/10/2017
Judge(s) : CHIEF SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE & P.S. DINESH KUMAR
Advocate(s) : S.Y. Shivalli. V.G.Bhanuprakash, Additional Government .
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page






#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw









    (Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the endorsement dated 17/20.6.2016 and endorsement dated 14.9.2016 issued by respondent No.4 as being arbitrary erroneous and contrary to law equity and justice at [Annexure-C and D] and etc.)P.S. Dinesh Kumar J.1. Issue notice to the respondents.Mr.V.G.Bhanuprakash learned additional government advocate accepts notice for the respondents. Therefore formal service of notice to them is dispensed with.2. Petitioner applied for grant of quarrying lease for extraction of m-sand/building stone on February 25 2015. The Assistant Commissioner Pandavapura submitted a report to the Senior Geologist Mandya (respondent No.4) stating that there was a proposal to transfer the land in question to the Forest Department. In furtherance thereof the fourth respondent issued an endorsement dated June 17/20 2016 (Annexure 'C') rejecting petitioner's application.3. In the meanwhile the residents of the village were protesting against proposed transfer of the land in question to the Forest Department. In this background the petitioner submitted a representation to the Senior Geologist not to reject its application. In response by an endorsement dated September 14 2016 (Annexure 'D') the Senior Geologist called upon the petitioner to obtain a 'No Objection Certificate' from the Forest Department to consider its request.4. Mr.S.Y.Shivalli learned advocate for the petitioner contended that both the Annexures 'C' and 'D' are unsustainable in law as the land in question is a Gomal land and the endorsements are based on a proposal to transfer the land to the Forest Department.5. However Mr.Bhanuprakash learned additional government advocate appearing for the respondents sought to justify the endorsements. He submitted that since the proposal to transfer the land to the Forest Department was under consideration the Senior Geologist was right in issuing the impugned endorsements.6. It is not in dispute that the land in question is a Gomal land. The transfer of the land to the Forest Department is still at the proposal stage. Therefore in our view the impugned endorsements are unsustainable in law.7. In the result the endorsements dated June 17/20 2016 and September 14 2016 being Annexures-C and D to this writ petition are quashed and the Senior Geologist Department of Mines and Geology Mandya district (respondent No.4) is directed to consider the petitioner's application for grant of quarrying lease to extract m-sand/building stone in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.8. The writ petition stands allowed.9. We make no order as to costs.