MUNIBACHAMMA Vs. DIRECTOR OF MINES GEOLOGY BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN THIS PETITION, THE PETITIONER HAS PRAYED FOR QUASHING THE order DATED 26-6-1995 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT REJECTING the REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER SEEKING TO SET ASIDE the ORDER OF DEEMED REJECTION OF THE APPLICATION DATED 27th JUNE, 1992, FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR GRANT OF QUARRYING LEASE IN respect OF THE LAND BEARING SY. NO. 187 MEASURING 0-20 GUNTAS, situated AT KOIRA VILLAGE, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT, for THE PURPOSE OF QUARRYING OF BUILDING STONES. THE COPY OF THE application DATED 27th JUNE, 1992, FILED BY THE PETITIONER HAS been PRODUCED IN THIS PETITION AS ANNEXURE - A, AND THE COPY OF the ORDER DATED 26th JUNE, 1995, PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT has BEEN PRODUCED IN THIS PETITION AS ANNEXURE -C.

(2.) THE FIRST RESPONDENT, BY MEANS OF THE ORDER ANNEXURE-C, REJECTED THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON THE ground THAT SINCE THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR GRANT of LEASE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN REJECTED AS PROVIDED UNDER RULE 6 of THE KARNATAKA MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES, 1969, (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE 'rules'), THE FIRST RESPONDENT WAS not AN APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER THE REVISION PETITION filed BY THE PETITIONER.

(3.) SRI PANEENDRA, LEARNED ADVOCATE APPEARING FOR SRI D. L. N. RAO, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER, SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER annexure-C IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS no APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT WITH REGARD TO THE contentions URGED BY THE PETITIONER AT THE STAGE OF HEARING OF THE revision PETITION; AND THAT THE 2nd RESPONDENT WAS UNDER A statutory OBLIGATION TO DISPOSE OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE petitioner FOR GRANT OF QUARRYING LEASE WITHIN 3 MONTHS FROM THE date OF THE RECEIPT OF THE APPLICATION, AND IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE 2nd RESPONDENT HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS STATUTORY OBLIGATION and THEREFORE, IT WAS INCUMBENT ON THE PART OF THE FIRST respondent TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF DEEMED REJECTION OF THE application ANNEXURE-A FILED BY THE PETITIONER, AND DIRECT THE 2nd RESPONDENT TO RECONSIDER THE APPLICATION ON MERITS AFTER conducting AN ENQUIRY AS PROVIDED UNDER RULE 9 OF THE RULES AND that THE POWER CONFERRED ON THE COMPETENT OFFICER TO DISPOSE OF the APPLICATION FILED FOR GRANT OF QUARRYING LEASE WITHIN THREE months UNDER RULE 6 OF THE RULES, IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER AS rule 9 OF THE RULES, CASTS A DUTY ON THE COMPETENT OFFICER TO conduct AN ENQUIRY ON RECEIPT OF THE APPLICATION FILED FOR quarrying LEASE, AND THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER HAS NOT BEEN considered BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT WHILE PASSING THE ORDER annexure-C.