PILLAMMA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has called into question the 3rd respondent's order dated 20.08.2011 (Annexure-C) and the 2nd respondent's order dated 14.12.2012 (Annexure-D). The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was holding the stone quarrying lease in respect of the land measuring one acre at Sy. No. 100 of Bettahalasur Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, for a period of five years commencing from 9.12.2007. On noticing certain violations of law and conditions of the lease, the 3rd respondent issued notice, dated 01.06.2011 (Annexure-B) to the petition as to why her quarrying lease should not be cancelled. The notice did not appear to have evoked any reply from the petitioner. The junior engineer held the spot-inspection and found that the area in question falls within the forbidden radius of 200 meters from the public structures. Further, the spot-inspection, conducted by the technical officials, confirmed the use of explosives in carrying out quarrying operations. Therefore, the 3rd respondent cancelled the quarrying lease by his order dated 20.08.2011 (Annexure-C). The said order was challenged by way of revision petition before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent by his order, dated 14.12.2012, rejected the revision petition by confirming the order of the 3rd respondent.

(2.) Sri. Sunil Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders are arbitrary. He complains of the 3rd respondent not complying with the mandatory requirements contained in Rule 6(3) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, as no opportunity whatsoever is given by the 3rd respondent to the petitioner to remedy the alleged breaches. He also complains of non-compliance with the mandatory requirement contained in Section 4A(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, which states that no order making a premature termination of a prospecting licence or mining lease shall be, made except after giving the holder of the licence or lease a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

(3.) Learned counsel submits that no royalty is due to be paid by the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner has not been using any explosives while doing the quarrying activity. He submits that the mining area does not fall within the forbidden radius. Learned counsel brings to our notice the Apex Court judgment in the case of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. L.K. Ratna and others, 1986 4 SCC 537 for advancing the contention that post-decisional hearing opportunity be given, as the matter suffers from the procedural difficulty of absence of pre-decisional hearing.