w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

M/s. Prism Infra Tech, By its proprietor Sadiq v/s State of Karnataka, Reptd. by its Chief Secretary to Government, Bengaluru & Others

    Writ Petition No. 44610 of 2017 (GM-MM-S)

    Decided On, 09 October 2017

    At, High Court of Karnataka


    For the Petitioner: S.Y. Shivalli, Advocate. For the Respondents: V.G.Bhanuprakash, Additional Government Advocate.

Judgment Text

(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

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

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.