CHOWGLE AND COMPANY BY ITS GPA HOLDER, MR. SANJEEV KUMAR S/O SRI HIRALAL BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF KERNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST AND ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER the report of the Lokayukta could be the basis for registering the First Information Report dated 3.2.2009 against the petitioner and to pass an order dated 3.2.2009 seizing the iron ore alleged to have illegally mined in the forest area as well as the tools, vehicles and machinery used for such illegal mining; and whether such FIR and the order of seizure can be quashed by exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, are the questions that arise for our consideration in the present writ petition.

(2.) THE State Government initially granted mining lease over an area of 459.63 hectares in favour of M/s. Lakshimnarayana Mining Company in respect of iron ore on 23.9.1963 for a period of twenty years under the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Vide notification dated 2.5.1968, the State Government grated sanction for transfer of mining lease in favour of the petitioner from M/s. Lakshminarayana Mining Company. Accordingly, M/s. Lakshminarayana Mining Company executed transfer deed dated 20.6.1963 in favour of the petitioner transferring the mining lease. The petitioner applied for renewal of the mining lease from 1983 -2003 confining its request for renewal of 110 hectares as per the advise of the Forest Department. The State Government after consideration of the application of the petitioner, granted the same. The mining lease was renewed for a further period of twenty years on 19.4.2007 by the State Government bearing M.L. No. 2546 for 100 hectares.

(3.) IN this backdrop, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that: (i) both the impugned proceedings - FIR dated 3.2.2009 and the seizure order dated 3.2.2009 are liable to be quashed, as the same are only based upon the report of the Lokayukta which is yet to be accepted by the Government; (ii) the Lokayukta report cannot be put against the petitioner, as the petitioner was not given any opportunity of being heard before the Lokayukta; (iii) assuming the respondents propose to take action based on the Lokayukta report, the second respondent ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner to explain its case against the findings in the Lokayukta report; (iv) assuming the respondents have got power to initiate action against the petitioner under Section 62A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (for short, 'the KF Act'), the same ought not to have been exercised arbitrarily, illegally and unreasonably against the petitioner.