BHUSHAN ENTERPRISES Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice for final disposal was issued on the earlier date.

(2.) The petitioner was granted a quarrying lease for ordinary building stone under the provisions of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short 'the said Rules'). The lease was for a period of ten years. The petitioner sought for deemed extension of lease in terms of sub-rule (4) of Rule 8-A of the said Rules as amended with effect from 12/8/2016. The challenge in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to Annexures-A and C. Annexure-C is the letter addressed by the Deputy Conservator of Forest to the Senior Geologist in which it is stated that the radius of 10 Kms. from the Wildlife Sanctuary shall be considered as a "Default Eco-Sensitive Zone". In terms of the said letter, an endorsement dtd. 18/11/2020 at Annexure-A has been issued stating that the site of the lease subject matter of this writ petition is at a distance of 7.40 kms. from the Kamasandra Wildlife Sanctuary (for short 'the said Wildlife Sanctuary') and therefore, it is falling within the "Default Eco-Sensitive Zone" of width of 10 Kms. It is further stated that the deemed extension for the lease will be processed after producing No Objection Certificates from the various departments and after obtaining prior approval of the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife.

(3.) The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made on the last date was based on what is held by the Apex Court in Paragraph 50 of the decision in the case of Goa Foundation vs Union of India and others,(2014)6 SCC 590. He would submit that the concept of "Default Eco-sensitive Zone" is not known to law.