S N G EXPORTERS Vs. SHILPI GRANITES EXPORTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT is before us challenging the order of the learned single judge in W. P. No. 2563/2002 D/- 28-5-2003 in this appeal.

(2.) FACTS as narrated in the appeal are as under: appellant respondent acquired a quarrying lease at Sy. No. 40 measuring 15 acres at guggalamari Village, Hungund Taluk, Bijapur district now in Bagalkor District for a valuable bid amount of Rs. 29. 05. 000/ -. The demarcated area contained only one acre of granite and the remaining 14 acres contained no granite at all. Hence the appellant sought for grant of alternate land by way of filing W. P. No. 17802/1997. The same was disposed of by this Court in terms of an order dated 27-11-1997. Thereafter the Government identified the land and granted quarrying lease No. 144 for a period of 5 years w. e. f. 24-12-1997 at Goggalamari Village. Even that granite was unsuitable for ornamental stone purposes and revealed that it was fractured in nature. Appellant sustained financial loss and gave a representation seeking for quarrying lease at Sy. No. 60 of Hanandanahalli Village, Malavalli taluk, Mandya District to an extent of 10 acres and also for seeking transfer of the lease in favour of the appellant. The same was considered and lease was granted in terms of an order dated 25-4-2001. Thereafter the first respondent filed a writ petition No. 2563/2002 seeking to quash the quarrying lease granted by the authorities in favour of the appellant. Matter was contested. After contest, learned single Judge has chosen to pass the impugned order. Aggrieved by the same, appellant is before us.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant would argue that learned single Judge has committed serious error in his order. He says that Sec. 8b of the Act would come to his rescue on the facts of this case. He would also explain to us that in the light of the suffering of the appellant, the Government has chosen to consider the case of the appellant in the light of an order passed by this Court in WP No. 17802/1997. He would say that the grant is in accordance with law in the light of Sec. 8b of the Act - the overriding provision, on the facts of this case. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would oppose the same.