H.T.MANJU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Issue notice to the respondents. The learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents. Considering the narrow controversy involved, the petition is forthwith taken up for final disposal.

(2.) The petitioner has been granted a licence under Section 3 of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 (for short 'the said Act of 2011') which is valid up to 31st march 2024. By the impugned notice dated 31st December 2019, the petitioner had been called upon to shift the crushing unit. In the notice, reliance is placed on clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act of 2011 by contending that the site of the crushing unit is within the distance of 100 metres from a major district road.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that now, Section 6 of the said Act of 2011 cannot be invoked since the licence has been granted after declaring the safer zone and there is no power under the said Act of 2011 to direct the licence holder to shift the crushing unit.