CHAUSON CEMENT AND CHEMICAL CORPORATION BANGALORE Vs. DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issues arising for determination in these two writ petitions are interrelated. The same have therefore been heard together for disposal by this common order.

(2.) THE petitioner secured a quarrying lease in respect of an area measuring around 8 acres situated in the villages of devanahalli and Guttahally on the outskirts of Bangalore City. The lease granted in the year 1984 was for a period of 5 years which was renewed for a further period of five years to end on 21st of June, 1994. The petitioner appears to have made an application for a further renewal on 8th of March, 1994, by which time the Government had by Notification dated 25th of june, 1993, reserved the area in question, for use by general public and forbidden the grant of any quarrying leases in respect of the same. The short notification issued on the subject reads thus:

(3.) THE request for renewal of the lease was upon consideration by the Senior Geologist rejected by his order dated 29th June, 1994. A revision preferred against the said orders before the Director, Department of Mines and Geology also proved unsuccessful and was dismissed by his order dated 14th july, 1995. The Director gave three precise reasons for upholding the order under challenge before him. Firstly he found that the area in question had been reserved by the Government for the use of the general public and for performance of religious functions and activities in the ancient temples that existed on the hillock comprising the area. Secondly he found that the :ea in question was surrounded by human habitation besides large tracts of cultivable lands on all sides which was according to him likely to be affected by the quarrying and crushing operations being carried on by the petitioner. He next found that the original lease and its renewal had been granted without obtaining a No Objection Certificate from the Revenue authorities concerned which was an essential requirement and that the lessee having enjoyed the lease for a period of 10 years since 1984 was not entitled to any further renewal. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed the present petitions. In W. P. No. 28664 of 1995 the challenge is directed against the orders passed by the senior Geologist and the Director refusing to grant the renewal whereas in W. P. No. 26667 of 1993 the challenge is directed against the notification issued by the Government reserving the area in question for use by the general public.