ANNASAHEB AND JINNAPPA S. PATIL Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, THE DIRECTOR AND THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners herein are challenging Annexure -F, dated 30.3.2012, in rejecting their prayer seeking refund of proportionate licence fee of Rs. 7,77,000/ - and Rs. 13,20,000/ -, respectively to each of the petitioners, being the licence fee paid in advance in pursuance to the licence issued in their favour. The admitted facts are that the petitioners herein were granted licence for quarrying of sand over an extent of 13 acres in Kaval koppa village, Belgaum District in respect of first petitioner and over an extent of 25 acres in Thirt village, Belgaum District in respect of second petitioner, for a period of one year to each of them, both commencing from 5.1.2010 and expiring on 4.1.2011. According to petitioners, extraction of ordinary sand under aforesaid quarrying lease is in the Krishna River basin, which required use of mechanized boats, which was permitted by second and third respondents by order dated 19.3.2010 and which was subsequently stopped due to direction issued by the Court in preventing use of mechanized boats for the purpose of extracting sand. According to petitioners, said withdrawal had caused difficulty in extracting sand, as such they were not able to utilise the permission granted under quarrying lease issued in their favour and because of the loss suffered by them, they are entitled to seek refund of licence fee on pro -rata basis proportionately for the period when they did not carryout sand extraction activity due to denial of use of mechanized boats.

(2.) IN these writ petitions, respondents 1 to 3 entered appearance and filed their statement of objections, wherein it is stated by them that as on the date when quarrying lease for extraction of sand was granted in favour of petitioners 1 and 2 the conditions governing lease did not permit use of mechanized boats, which was subsequently granted by communication dated 19.3.2010 and thereafter, within one month said permission was withdrawn because of the direction issued by the Court preventing use of mechanized boats for extraction of sand. Therefore, it is contended that petitioners while they bid for quarrying lease of extraction of sand, they were aware that quarrying activity was required to be carried on without the use of mechanized boats and that whatever concession that was given to them pursuant to communication dated 19.3.2010 is only for a period of roughly one month, which in no way disturbed the mining activity of petitioners. It is also stated that pursuant to lease the mining activity was carried on completely for the period of one year by both the petitioners i.e., from 5.1.2010 till 4.1.2011. As such, they are not entitled to seek refund of alleged loss said to have been suffered by them entitling them to seek pro -rata refund of proportionate licence fee of Rs. 7,77,000/ - and Rs. 13,20,000/ - as prayed for in these writ petitions.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondents and on going through the orders relied on by the counsel for the petitioners, it is clearly seen that the prayer made in these writ petitions is baseless, inasmuch as, petitioners have successfully completed the extracting of sand pursuant to mining lease issued in their favour, which was in force from 5.1.2010 till 4.1.2011. The contention of petitioners that from April 2010 they were deprived of the use of mechanized boats and as such, they were not able to carry out mining activity of extracting sand is without basis, inasmuch as, when the lease was granted in their favour it was not granted with right to use mechanized boats for extraction of sand. The said concession was given subsequently by communication dated 19.3.2010, which was in force for a period of little more than a month, which is thereafter withdrawn pursuant to the direction issued by the Court in the month of April 2010. Therefore, to say that withdrawal of use of mechanized boats has come in the way of execution of lease by petitioners 1 and 2, is without basis. It is further seen that the orders relied on by the counsel for petitioners is with reference to persons whose mining lease is not extended beyond 31.3.2011 though they had valid mining lease, due to sand policy which has come in to force on 29.1.2011. And those of the petitioners who were not able to carryout mining activity beyond 31.3.2011 despite the fact that licence issued to them was still in force, they were permitted to approach the Government seeking refund of licence fee proportionately for the period when they were not able to carryout mining activity. It is seen that the facts and circumstances of the case of petitioners herein are totally different from the facts and circumstances of the aforesaid orders relied on by the counsel for the petitioners, as said orders have no nexus to the facts of the case on hand. However the petitioners, by relying on said orders, are trying to take advantage in seeking refund of licence fee, when in fact, they have successfully completed extraction of sand pursuant to lease granted in their favour. Hence, this Court find that there are no justifiable reasons to consider the prayer made by the petitioners in these writ petitions. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed without any order as to costs.