SIDDESHWARA INTERNATIONAL Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking and writ of certiorari for quashig the order dated 2nd September, 2006 as per Annexure-A and the order dated 19th December, 2006, as per Annexure-B and for a declaration that no permission is required either from the Central Government or the state Government for mining in an area less than 5 Hectares.

(2.) THE petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of mining. It was granted a mining lease dated 13th June, 2005 for a period of 20 years for an extent of 12. 10 acres in Sy. No. 121of Hogrehalli village, Kadur taluk, Birur Hamatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others (reported in (1997) 8 SCC 191) : (AIR 1997 SC 3297 obli, Chikamagalur District vide ML No. 2491. Annexure-C is the copy of the mining lease. The petitioner is the owner of the property in respect of which the mining lease was granted. The Karnataka State pollution Control Board by their letter dated 8th August, 2005 gave their consent for the establishment of mining industry. Annexure-D is the copy of the said letter. The Deputy Conservator of Forests, by his letter dated 18th april, 2005 as per Annexure-E addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Chikmagalur stating that the leased property is not on the Western Ghats. Acting on the said report, the deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-G, dated 10th May, 2005 recommended for issue of mining lease. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for Environmental Clearance Certificate on 22nd September, 2005 as per Annexure-G. By a communication dated 12th december, 2005 as per Annexure-H Environmental Clearance Certificate was granted. However, even before the said communication was officially communicated to the petitioner, one Vrukshalaksha Andholona karnataka Seva Sagara Trust, Shimoga (for short hereinafter referred to as "trust") gave a representation to the Environment Clearance department not to grant permission for mining in the leased property. On their representation, the permission dated 12th December, 2005, which was not communicated to the petitioner came to be stayed by an order dated 19th December, 2005, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-J. On coming to know the same, the petitioner made a representation dated 28th December, 2005 requesting them to grant the certificate sought for as per annexure-K. It is thereafter, the impugned order came to be passed rejecting the said request for grant of Environmental Clearance certificate. Subsequently, several representations were made by the petitioner to revoke the said order. The same were not considered. The petitioner has also produced the consent letter obtained under Water (Prevention and control of Pollution) Act as per Annexure-Q and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution)Act as per Annexure-R. However, as the Environmental Clearance Certificate was not granted, the aforesaid consent letters were withdrawn by the aforesaid authorities as per annexure-S. Again, the petitioner made representation requesting them not to withdraw those letters. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the aforesaid action of the respondents.

(3.) THOUGH the petitioner asserts in the writ petition that the certificate which had been granted by the Environment Committee was withdrawn at the instance of the Trust, the petitioner chose not to make them party to the proceedings. On coming to know of the filing of this writ petition, the Trust filed an application for impleading, which was allowed by this Court and, therefore, they are arrayed as respondents-3 and 4.