SHANTHU GURUM Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr.R.G.Kolle, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, strenuously, argues that there was no justification on the part of the authorities for not issuing licence for granite operation in respect of the patta land of the writ petitioner.

(2.) Mr.Y.H.Vijay Kumar, learned additional government advocate, submits that there have been amendments in the previous granite mining lease providing that there could not be any lease in respect of lesser than 2.2 acres of land.

(3.) Mr.Kolle is right in pointing out that two expressions are used in the rules lease and licence. It is expected that Legislature would not have used two different expressions, if they were to convey the same meaning. Mr.Kolle submits that there is no minimum prescribed area for issuing the licence. He, also, submits that the writ petitioner wants to operate granite excavation in his own patta land. All that he needs is permission from the government.