High Court Karnataka High Court

Gopal vs State Of Karnataka on 20 June, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Gopal vs State Of Karnataka on 20 June, 2008
Author: N.Kumar
V.    The Senior Geologist

 

III THE HIGH GOURT OF' KARNATAKA AT  ~.
Datnd this the 20*' day ofdunc,  V  
BEFORE  '

mm Hoxrnm MR..Ja§T1CE._§   :3

Writ Petition Ne.f 1~¢§60f5.of'20?)?..VVfGMlMM§S}
BETWEEN; TA   " 1'

S/o Khcmu Ra,t_,.hod 5;   =

Aged about 3&3 years  '    V.
Resident of Inga]agi;jV':11age'--.  «.
Wadi J1113<:'ti:o::t.,T  "*::.--  
Ch1ttapmg'aTalui-:.f,    _ *
Gulbargaiflistiict  "    ' ...Petitioner

(By mm s F?aj.§i1£§dr:2;'1E'I;asad, Senior Counsel for
 s. M 'S Rajcrtdra Pfasad Asmciates, Advocates)

1  . *-State 6£V.Kazfn1&taka
' . Mines &.C-estnlogr Department
M S ,B111lc!ings
D1"...fi R Ambedkar Vecdhi
 Banggfiom -- 560 001
V. " Represented by its
x _PIiI1cipal Secmtaxy to Govcxnmcnl

' Mines 6:. Ge-ologw Depamnént

Gulharga 



 

3 The Deputy Commissioner

Gulbarga District, Guibarga   % 1 --

(By 831' M B P;abha1;;ai¥; A0-gg)'~._ ~:' 0 A " 0

This wm Pefifion is 0100 u11de1;".A__V_zlcs 0:200 and 
the Cionstitution of India, pxaving to quash' tiiig a§rd.c::f diatcti  '

a

3-9-2007

of the 3″ mspandent ‘taper A2111¢xuMtt_r-A;1,>asV’il1egal
and zmsustaiuabit: in law. ” F

This Writ Petition o1:;Vfb’r._ hearing in
“B” Group this day, the mad:

TI_1c_ petifion seeking Writ of
ccrtiorarig_for–_ qugg.a;;2g00:0e00 dated 03.09.2007 passed by

the: M10 z’0s§)0ud01it by which his request

V for e:i’~h’?§i\’«,aneuraj-»9fVléé1sev:’0r refund of money paid, is Iejectm.

.A_V;’pe’-;’:’;it:i<:r11e::* was granted the lease of sand block

N0-.SA :1':i§§er .F;a§na, as he was the highest bidder who had

" 0003000 Rs..é3,45,0m~00 in public auction. The period of one

from 21.01.2006. Lease (iced was executed on

V. When the pcfifionctr started using diesel pump

éjcts, pipes and mobilized boats to suck the sand from the river

bed of Kagzina, there was a public: protest and therefore, the

\/.0

petitioner was mlled upon to stop excavation of

help of machinery. The petitioner chailcngexi _A "=

prefczmng writ petition in W.P.No.f36"§O/'G7."«A_ T'nn_"

pcfition was aiiovwed and the;

dimctcd to consider the cLa1m’ V.

appmpriate orders. Commissioner
issued notice to 1:11: ‘Lhas passed the

intiptlflbd

3. appearing for the
peiitiuoncrvV”-:=1$sa1hn’V’ order contends that the

impugned oxflér is Jia’ia1¢A:-7tnV set aside on the gound of non-

” cf 01′ natural justice. Secondly, he

jaflcgafions made against the petitioner is not

csta5’bAl.i’shui.A he contended that ctithcr he ahould get the

Iztfsncwen :,)f th¢V or he should get the pmpoltinnate mftmcl

” ,fln1¢3€:1;11OV1ViI1t which he had paid as least: amount.

j I do not find any substance in any of these

nontscnfions. A perusal of the impugned oniez’ shows that in

\x/

mncwal would not arise. Assuming that 11: has

prevented £10311 carrying on the mining V’

that how army days he was pmvent@¢i,”‘what V

sustained, how much he would have

is the matter which Iequircs ééifapce the * L’

Deputy Commissioner nqr –i1;tQJ§the said
question and hold a flue petitioner to

approach the campctgnt xfovrf

7. If’ ‘establish the damages
sustainotfiglié wgmd fc$if’Vféfi nad of that portion of the
amount hé “it; law. Thcrefoxe, then: is no

merit 5;; 3 w1ét ‘p_ciAifib31.’;~*: Aoeonamgzy, it is mjccted.

.. i.§”msarz»ed to the peiitioner to approach the

Ifhe so choaaas to seekfor damagw.

Sd/-g-Z;

Jufiééi