(1.) THE Petitioner is engaged in extraction of black granite stone. The aforesaid activity has been permitted by the Department of Mines and Geology. On 27.01.2011, eleven blocks of granite stone extracted by the Petitioner were inspected, identified and marked by the Department of Mines and Geology. Only one of the stone blocks is relevant for the present controversy. The aforesaid stone block was identified at serial Number 74. The said stone had a length of 309.00 cms, breadth of 197.00 cms and height of 161.00 cms, and as such, stone block No. 74 measured 9.801 cu.mtrs.
(2.) THE Petitioner applied for a Mineral Dispatch Permit for the eleven blocks extracted by him. So far as block No. 74 is concerned, Mineral Dispatch Permit bearing No. 4565 was issued to him. It was valid for the period from 11.03.2011 to 13.03.2011. In the Mineral Dispatch Permit the length, breadth, height and volume of the stone in question was also duly recovered. As per permit No. 4565, the same was to be transported in a truck bearing registration No. KA.01 -A -9108.
(3.) IT is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that the stone impounded on 11.03.2011 was the same stone, which was identified and marked as block No. 74, by the Department of Mines and Geology. It was also the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that the said black granite stone was being transported under a genuine Mineral Dispatch Permit. In view of the above, it was submitted, that the Petitioner repeatedly visited the offices of the Respondents seeking the release of the stone, as also, the truck, (in which it was transported). However, the pleas raised by the Petitioner were not acceded to by the Respondents, as such, he had no other alternative, but to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition.