High Court Karnataka High Court

Nanjundaswamy S/O. Late Siddaiah vs State Of Karnataka Rep By Its Secy on 27 May, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Nanjundaswamy S/O. Late Siddaiah vs State Of Karnataka Rep By Its Secy on 27 May, 2009
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & V.G.Sabhahit
EN THE HIGH COGRT 012' KARNA'§'AKA AT BArq.C;ég:,§::i'é":f;:"A« V.

DATEB THIS THE 27% my' 0:»? MAY  

PRESENT;

THE }§ON'BLE MR. RD. 13:NAi<;é;Rg=:%%,TV_A§:I»~:1§'::i%_%;;'s3.s'r:':;i{é~


THE HC}i':;19

BETWEEN:

1 b§ANJ§§E€v!}z§$WA§'<AY"~_ _
3-; Q; LATE' SE12} :3.éJ;-13;" '-
R;Afm%EAR '1':f§wré$~-.<:w8
fi§~££:'2¥Ij?iE2AJ §éA{}AR.._i§'Q'iFEE'%.  PE"'FiT'£()NER

gagfigxéxg NAC§";%3s§§:;ATEs. }

 Ajm:§ : _

"   <ii;F};:REz;7i'f= 'r7}%3,E R3 m V'

CGNSIDER THE: REPRESENTAT§QN~..QF 'mE_?Ef1%1T;op:ER

3112?. 12.€)8, MARKED é'»'£I_' A§'~E.NéJ.'  1' 

This Writ petitioiié 'is "   for Preliminaly
Hearing on this day, SAEE=£A}*¥I"i'-.51 deiziivgiad' the follawing.

This {v;5;:1:i;;;e:g::::c$:-; ;s;,"'fi:e§"uad§': A rt:ie::1es 225 and 22? of
ma  :' 'E:t1<':i'.i;Va "' ixcfakizxg for a writ of mandamus
 Eansider {ha application 0f the

petitigzietr 35' p¢r"Rnfi'aXfim«J ta the Writ psiition iiatsd

. .   petitioner has sought for rénfiwai of

  1i£:1{a;g"cé:V".i%§§-~;0L 11: daieé 143.2004.

  i.s4 :avaz'red £3 that petitien that petitizmer was given

u x V' fiéange  quarrying black granite on 14.8. 1994 for 3 guerioé

.  V years. Licance deed was exficutfid a(:*«:':0:rding1:;: fer five

 u "gem-S {mm 31311997, The perisd af the said 1}:C6IZ{)€ expimd

an 39,?',QG€}2 and licence discloses that petifioner can

\J



cperrate the stem: quazrymg in Sy.N0.3(}2 Cantaining an area

of 1 acre 2 guntas as per the Eiescriiption given  '£iz th$

26332/licence deed. The pctitianer got approved'V.¢:1jg3:VV'si{t;?€éh.

from the third respondent confirming the area   

3.5.2002 b€fQI’€ the expiry of fiiié period T:1’x:’:<;?».:_:3'1V:c:e–, '

approached {he office of the '»31"n:1"

appiicatzioa in the prescribeci iiéénce ‘V

was ta expiira on 30.?,2_{}02. T1″:c~{it)p1ic:§zti0n reéeived by

the ms:p01;d=$ii?i’v.’;2VnT:i:”ackfiéavicsigement has been issued. The
petitionérV.;vé§-srnt art the Aufiloréty for renewal of

iicenfm’ fig; I€$pe:~:'(:f{ho f €Z) L.E’\I.{>.111 in Sy.No.3{32 of Vecranpura

“V”a.*i1lV§3fgc~:, :’C}i2::Jj11arajanag3:”a fiistrict and petifionez’ was

I .:7o E.f:af:y on quar:::fying operation as {$13 renewal

apip-Eica1;i:>:2_VL’I:éS been pmcesseé; and Kanspoflafion permitg

“~.__ *w:2re 01;: payment of mjgalty as per Karnataiqa Minor

concessian Rubs, 1994. £1: £3 further avarrfid that me

Sgécanfi I’€S§OI”£€i€:I1′{ I’€1{‘l6″Wf:Ci thfi licence in re3§€<:§ {zf

transpefiatien. Gopy of the mnewa} of iicenca far

transportation is pmducefi as An11exure~§' to '£1516 wr°if€

V'

petgitiefl. Hmwaver, apph7€a"£i01:1 for reI1et.xz_a}~._ W?-zfgs ._ ;":G't. -. u

considereé despite Inquest mad€:[by tlie:, ;§§:ti:tjO:1_ér–..f0_i'V«fi'l€'

reasons best kxzown to re3poz1€iVr:nts.T –Erio'§%'t:£:ef;§

13.2.2688 third 1tspon{i€nt"'V'é;:§% ii C{)p§:' <)_f Eéfiter ziaied

1 Lzkgoas stating that mgte in i§.s,"6:ét meeting
held 011 33.9.2007 hav:eVA the renewai sf
quarry licencg» Jwas granted afid
what were the time of larzii grant
anti 33:; sucifi;'§r:1£ifi0x;c:1*..»_¥§i;ras –:'éq11cs1:r3d to submit {he said
:Znf0rmafi0:1:'af {B6 the qu.arr}=' iicazzce N9' 1 1 1

1%-as ;¥sa:1§::ti0z1c:£i.AV in favour sf S1'i.N313j"a.m,dasWamy on the

gv:;a:§s;é::i"§;»f i};gpa::a :1 ;é;y Sr:i.Siddai3}1 3/ ofiasavaiaiz, which is

A =.ap._p}ie"<1..imf "1?::'1";:=f;%:'a}L. 'E'h;€ opixiien was sought aafiiifir, iiowmisxr,

fh e–.;:fe13}};~ h¢s1§$:* {mt been received. It is averted that sinca frem

'EQGG i*e$§onéen'{s are dragging file pmzteeding for rsnewai cf

§C€§1Cf:'S, bu: 1316 Autherities weat on pastpouixzg by

' g:i§vimg sane mamn or the; other and thsrefare, petitioner mafia

rrspresmztaiiorx 0:1 2'?.}2.2$@8 to dime: thfi Aathoriiififi 1:9

is$§1{:*r pszrmiw an abtaining the royahty far amaeth Gperafian

J'

af quarrya Thilti respondent Withholdiag 13:16 application for

mnewai Of licence aixxcca vex}? it:-ng time and petitioI1er..3}3~.E_3£:i11g

harassed and therefore, the writ pfitition for _

rztliefs.

3, we have hsard the lfiazfigd ¢§:;;:§e1 ;Wm%g ‘ fmé’

the §_’)€fifi01’18Z’ and the i€3_.7.’;f_1€d ‘€3′;oi:*fi,’rn3)’;<:f:'2;. AdV€}CéI:E ,

appeaxinug for the msponflents, z

_ {::)13.:<1$7e1..__ appeartixzg fer fhfi ptziitioner
s11bmi¥:téb2V._:}1a€:, 'r&1ié2=s%'&;1 'égfificafien 0f the petitioner fias :30:

heat}; 'mmit£e£: has

smight far certain patticuiars {ram the pfitifimzer by Eeitsr

éatsd ,’£5a2.2Q38 ané it is net as if the responésnts an?

x)’

” wch’ H_0$i:.~ ‘{‘::$;

The writ petitioix is dismissed, Hawever, dism§.é:=;.3l’V–;)f

{ha Wfit peiétiorx would not preclude the thirfl

consider tbs ap§3;icatio11 of the peztitgiggagr for’ rj-‘f”mini11.g ” ” .

§iCfiIiC6 clateé 35,2862 emd disposz:

accardancs with law.


           Justice

W            sd/-1
§v3;1c§ex:'{}:§s'f"€=§Q  ., V" Iudge