N. RAGHAVENDRA RAJU Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned endorsements issued by the fourth respondent as per Annexures-K to T respectively. The petitioners have also sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to secure No Objection Certificates from the concerned authorities and execute the lease deeds subject to other conditions as may be specified in sub-rule (5) of Rule 8 of The Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994(for short 'KMMC Rules") as substituted by The Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2016.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the case are as under: The petitioners in the top noted writ petition submitted their respective applications for grant of quarrying leases in respect of ordinary building stone, which is classified as the non-specified minor minerals on the respective dates mentioned against their names in the table at paragraph 3 of the petition. The case of the petitioners is that the applications tendered by the petitioners are prior to amendment of KMMC Rules which came into force on 12.08.2016. The grievance of the petitioners before this Court is that the fourth respondent has not made any efforts to obtain No Objection Certificates and reports from the jurisdictional Tahsildar, Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, Deputy Conservator of Forest and Geologist. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the fourth respondent has failed to implement and invoke Rule 8(5) and (6) of KMMC Rules. The fourth respondent has issued the impugned endorsements treating the applications of the petitioners as ineligible under Rule 8-B(1) of KMMC Rules. The contention of the petitioners is that since the applications submitted by the petitioners is much prior to 12.08.2016, it was incumbent on the part of the fourth respondent to address letters to the competent authorities and seek No Objection Certificates, reports, views and opinions within a period of 90 days in terms of Rule 6 of KMMC Rules 1994. On these set of grounds, the petitioners have filed the present petition challenging the impugned endorsement issued by the fourth respondent.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. Their submissions are placed on record.