DODDANNAVAR BROTHERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following reliefs :

(2.) Notice was issued to the Respondents. Respondent No. 2 - Director, Department of Mines and Geology, had filed the statement of objections averring that the averment made in the writ petition that the Petitioner is entitled to continue mining as per the lease granted to him since the application for renewal of mining lease was filed within time and in view of Rule 24(A)(6) of the Rules, is misconceived. It is averred that the area covered under the mining lease is a 'Reserved Forest' within the meaning of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, comprising of Forest Sy. No. 116 of Ramthal Village and Sy. No. 65 of Hiremagi Village of Hungund Taluk to an extent of 39.20 Hectares (98-00-00 Acres) described in the proceedings of the Government of Karnataka in G.O. No. FEE 40 FEE 98 dated 29.09.1999 (Annexure 'R1' to the objections statement) followed by a letter F. No. 8-159/91-FC dated 02.09.1999 from the Ministry of Environment and Forests (F.C. Division), Government of India, stating at condition No. viii that the period of permission for lease under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, would be for 20 years with effect from 01.03.1990 co-terminus with the mining lease under the M.M.D.R Act. Pursuant to the same, the Petitioner has executed an agreement on 30.03.2000 (Annexure 'R2' to the objections statement) registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Hungund, containing several conditions incorporated therein. The Petitioner has agreed under Clause 32 of the registered agreement that the lessee shall on the termination of the lease, deliver the possession of the leased area to the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Bagalkot. In the light of the above stipulation, possession of the forest area was got surrendered from the Petitioner in accordance with law. The notices issued by the third Respondent are justified and the Petitioner cannot claim right of mining automatically once the application for renewal is filed. It is also averred that the Petitioner is not entitled to aid of Rule 24(A)(6) of the Rules in view of the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Rules, 2004, published in the Gazette of India, as per Rule 4.21, which stipulates that temporary working permission has to be obtained by the Central Government after recommendation from the State Government and therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) We have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents and the learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 4.