JAYASHREE KIRANKUMAR RATHOD Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioner has sought for quashment of proceedings of the meeting of the District Sand Monitoring Committee dtd. 20/12/2022 held under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner-respondent No.4 (Annexure-A) insofar as the same pertains to rejection of the application filed by the petitioner for issuance of a quarry lease and grant of Sand Quarry Licence over her Private Patta Land measuring 5 acres and for further direction to the Deputy Commissioner/respondent No.4 to send the recommendation to the respondent No.2 for grant of Sand Quarry Licence as per Rule 31-Z(1) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'KMMC Rules' for short).

(2.) It is contended by the petitioner that she is the absolute owner of the Patta Land measuring 10 acres situated at Suralikall Village, Hungund Taluka, Bagalkot District. That a technical report dtd. 12/5/2022 had been issued in Form-S by the Geologist and also a recommendation dtd. 1/10/2022 was issued by the Taluk Sand Monitoring Committee. That the said recommendation by the Taluk Sand Monitoring Committee was granted after receiving No Objection Certificates dtd. 5/8/2022 from Revenue Department, 22/8/2022 from Forest Department and 6/8/2022 from Senior Geologist, District Underground Water and dtd. 29/9/2022 by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Government of Karnataka Mining Irrigation and Underground Water Development respectively. That despite the aforesaid recommendations and No Objection Certificates, the District Sand Monitoring Committee in its meeting held on 20/12/2022 rejected the Quarry Licence application dtd. 28/4/2022 filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) Sri. Ravindra Gajanan Kolle, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the provisions of Sec. 31- Z(1) of the KMMC Rules and the technical report and no bjection certificates referred to herein above submitted that there was no reason or justification in the District Sand Monitoring Committee rejecting the application of the petitioner, as it has no power under the KMMC Rules. He further submits that at the most the District Sand Monitoring Committee could only recommend either granting or rejecting the application. Alternatively, he submitted that even assuming that District Sand Monitoring Committee had indeed issued recommendation for rejection even the such recommendation would be erroneous considering the technical reports submitted by the concerned authority wherein petitioner land is stated not to be situated in the active river course or bed. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition.