LAWS(KAR)-2021-7-31

SARDAR AHMED.H.A Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On July 12, 2021
Sardar Ahmed.H.A Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent.

(2.) For the purpose of deciding the controversy involved in the petition, a brief reference to the factual aspects will be necessary.

(3.) The petitioner is claiming to be the owner of a patta land more particularly described in the petition. He applied under sub-rule (1) of Rule 32 of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short "the said Rules of 1994") for grant of a permission for quarrying granite stone. On 14th January 2016, a work order was issued to the petitioner for recommencing the stone quarrying operation on the patta land in accordance with sub-rule (1) of Rule 32 of the said Rules of 1994. The work order was in respect of a land in Herandyapanahalli Village, Kanakapura Taluk, District Ramanagara. As noted in the said work order, permissions and clearances were granted to the petitioner including Environment Clearance Certificate. On 27th May 2016, the Commissioner and Director of the Department of Mines and Geology addressed a letter to the Deputy Director of the Department of Mines and Geology with a direction to take action of cancellation of the permission granted to the petitioner. On 22nd June 2016, an order was made by the Deputy Director, the Department of Mines and Geology recording that the land subject matter of the petition was situated within a distance of one kilometer from the boundary of Bannerghatta National Park (for short "the said National Park"). It appears that the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 37789/2016 for challenging the said order. Initially, by the order dated 22nd March 2017, subject to the outcome of the said writ petition, this Court permitted the petitioner to continue the mining operations for a period of six weeks. On 7th June 2017, the said interim order was extended till further orders.