A.S. HARISHA ADVOCATE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is admittedly a practising advocate and the petitions are argued by learned counsel Mr. Sampath Anand Shetty. It is stated at the outset, that the petitioner noticed that the directions contained in the order of Division Bench of this Court in WP No. 17078/1997 popularly known as Obayya Poojary's case, which were issued in public interest have not been implemented in letter and spirit till this date, though 15 years have elapsed. It is contended that the respondents having been very casual in their attitude in bringing in the enactment namely, the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 (for short 'the Act') which is not only per se in contravention of the essence of the directions contained in the order dated 10.07.1998 in W.P. No. 17078/1997 of this court, but would also amount to an illusory method adopted by the State, which is infact circumventing the orders of this Court, as well as the Supreme Court. Under the circumstances, the petitioner is stated to have been constrained to approach this court with an intention to espouse the public cause. The entire elaborate petitions have the same refrain and after deprecating the enactment and provisions of the Act, the petitioner has also made elaborate prayers, inter alia seeking a writ in the nature of declaration that the Act brought about by the respondent-State and the Rules framed thereunder are in utter contravention of the directions contained in the aforesaid order dated 10.07.1998 of this court in WP No. 17078/1997. It may be pertinent to note here that while admitting that the petitioner and his representative are practising in this court, it is also admitted that they do not have any record of public service or taking up of any public cause. As advocates practising in this court and being officers of this court, they could be presumed to know that, after the enactment of impugned Act and Rules, hundreds of cases arising from the operation thereof are adjudicated in this Court and hundreds of parties on either side of such litigation are likely to be affected by any decision on the issues sought to be raised in the petitions.

(2.) Initially it was argued, repeatedly and at length by learned counsel Mr. Sampath Anand Shetty, that the impugned enactments are in violation of the directions issued by this court in the aforesaid order dated 10.07.1998 in WP No. 17078/1997. When it was pointed out that none of the aforesaid directions ordered enactment of any law or rules, and hence the impugned Act and Rules cannot be assailed as either in violation of the directions or in execution of the directions, learned counsel shifted the stand and submitted in writing, that the State Government had no power to make the impugned enactment, in view of the provisions of Article 246 of the Constitution read with Entry No. 23 of State List-II. It was submitted in writing that no entry in the State List of the Constitution enabled the State to bring about or exercise the legislative power on the topic of regulation of stone crusher units, much less to enact the legislation, providing for licenses and their renewals by the State. It is further submitted that the State has only power to make rules in respect of minor minerals under the provisions of Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957; and the provisions of Section 15 only permitted making of rules by the State Government for regulating the grant of quarrying lease, mining lease or other mineral concessions.

(3.) Thus, in short, serious legal and constitutional issues were sought to be raised by the petitioner, admittedly without having any stake in the matter or anything to gain or lose by any decision. It is also common knowledge, atleast among officers and advocates of this court, that hundreds of cases arising from the operation of the Act are pursued by the parties, who are capable of taking care of their own interest and raise all the legal issues without requiring any assistance or representation by any public spirited person. It is not even alleged in the petitions or on behalf of the petitioner that parties affected by the operation of the Act are incapable of approaching this court or in any way suffering any handicap in accessing the appropriate forum. Under the circumstances, it prima facie appears that the concerned advocate has been attempting to fish in troubled waters, so as to affect large number of other litigants, without any stake of his own and without even being serious in his submissions. It may be noted here that the way the oral arguments were addressed and repeated before this court also displayed singular lack of interest, depth, study or preparation.