APEX CRUSSHERS Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHAMRAJANAGAR DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was granted a licence under Section 3 of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 (for short 'the said Act'). A copy of the licence annexed as Annexure-A shows that the licence was valid upto 31st March 2018. An application for renewal of the said licence was filed by the petitioner in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act on 21st March 2018. An endorsement dated 20th November 2018 was issued by the Deputy Director holding that the application for renewal has not been submitted three months prior to the expiry of period of the licence. It was observed in the impugned notice that there is no provision under which the said application for renewal can be considered.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has tendered across the Bar, a memo seeking to incorporate an additional prayer. His first submission is that the licence is erroneously granted only upto 31st March 2018 and the same ought to have been granted upto 31st March 2019. He submitted that if in terms of Section 5 of the said Act, the licence would have been granted upto 31st March 2019, the application for renewal made by the petitioner is within time. He tendered across the Bar certain orders showing that in similar cases, the term of the licence has been extended by the Authorities. Secondly, he submitted that under sub-section (1) of Section 4 or under any provision of the said Act, the consequences of not applying for renewal within the time provided therein have not been incorporated and, therefore, the period mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 4 for applying for renewal is not mandatory. Lastly, he submitted that both the application for renewal and the application for grant of a fresh licence under the said Act are required to be filed in the same form (in Form-A) and therefore, the application made by the petitioner for renewal can be treated as an application for a fresh licence.

(3.) The learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the petition.