1
iii THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNA'i'AKA AT BANGALQRE
DATED THIS THE 13'? DAY OF JUNE zoi i
PRESENT
THE HONBLE i\/iR.J.S.KHEHAR, CHIEF' Jusiificit
AND V
THE HONBLE2 MRJUSTICE ~
Writ Petition NQ39584;2O_IO{(3ivI'4i\"i':X«i+S'}: ii 'V
Between
Sri G.B.Shekarappa .
S/0 late Sri Basavanthappa
51 years
R/a Kamadheiiiu Motors , A ' "
893 Cross, Bid Main, N'ag2i:'v " "
Chithradurga T i . . .Petition€r
{By Sri G.B.Nan<<iéVes.h C:AQxv{iii..foi<Sfi'.jRBfiadasivappa a<:1vS.,}
And
1 . ThéviVDe.}§;'1it§} sioiiéif
CVhit_11rad'u.ifg_a"District ' '
Chith-rad11VVrga:' , " --~ .__ ~ ~'
2. _ The Aésistant ciominissioner
, Chithradurggi Si.1b--Division
~ V'C5hith'rgidu1'ga
. "*vi'Chit-firaélurga Taiuk
Chiithradurga
T Director of Mines & Geoiogy
V V ' 2 BL. Gowda Layout
V ' -'Near' Basappa Hospital
R110. Office Road, Chiihradurga ...Respondenf;s
(By Sri R.G.Kci11e, AGA)
This Writ Petition is fileé under Aiticies 226 and 22?
{if the Ceiistiiiiiioii of India praying to quash the impugned
mm &@:QW @W'V';,
ism 3%
Mae
2
order/endorsement dated 20.08.2010 passee§""b3}[VR{i5§:Vei<ein
Vide Annexnrewhi and ete, " " . 2
This Writ Petition coining _onfor p'reiin1ij1:afy_'_hearing;
this day, Chief Justice made the fo11»<_3HV§?i;13?:;§o§ ' '
i
J.S.Khehar, C.J. (Oral) it
Notice to the regsponde-n--ts';'v--. {En onr'e.si:ing, Mr.Ko11e,
learned Additional accepts notice on
behalf of respondent it 'V S
2.” 1 petition, the petitioner
has agssaiieei’.5′._tVh§;.:{§rd:ge:~=–..___dateriV’ 20.08.2010 {Annexure-ML
dee1iningith%e ttie petitioner to renew the iease
period’, so ‘éisvito_e’na§b1e”‘hirn to instal the stone crusher in
.—.,.._Athc{&é1rea, over which he was earlier operating as stone
Ver1_isher._ _
3,” fiE.earned Counsel for the petitioner states, that
V”-the netitioner will be satisfied, if the respondents can
_reeo_nsider his eiairn, keeping in mind the decision rendered
this Court in Obayya Pnjary and ethers VS Member
Secretary, Karnataka State Poiiution Contra} Boardi
Bangalore and ethersi AIR 1999 KAR 157, and thereupon;
pass a fresh erder.
3
43 Learned eeunsel for the respondents states. that
the respondents have no objeetien 1:0 rewexaminefhe elaim
of the petitioner for running a stone in
mind the decision rendered by this
Pujarys Case. fl ‘ . ‘4 2
5. In View of the above,bathe”ipstaf;§f:;v_%7§f:*if:’~
dispased of, with a direetiefi*ve:’e£§).theVhHie’ pase a
fresh order, on the app}ica«’tie_1i ‘petitioner for
allowing him to 0peb;§nt:pEh.A?1;ée.v_véi keeping in
mind the Court in Obayya
Pujarye be appreciated, if the
eompefepf reasoned speaking order,
‘AfithiHV fW!G’ date of receipt of a certified
eopyjof A V
V. in theaferesaid terms.
eéiw p
Ckfiei Eégeiififi
Séfeé
3 eééee
bkv
Index: yeejzae