High Court Karnataka High Court

M/S Southern Mineral Exports vs State Of Karnataka on 23 September, 2010

Karnataka High Court
M/S Southern Mineral Exports vs State Of Karnataka on 23 September, 2010
Author: J.S.Khehar(Cj) And A.S.Bopanna
1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 23% DAY OF' SEPTEMBER 2010
PRESENT "

THE HONBLE MR.J.S.I<IIEI~IAR, CHIEF JUSTI'CE_"gTu

AND 1. __  
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE A.S.BOPAI§fNA--Y./2' _
WRIT PETITION NO. 28594;/'2'o'1T0'(GM<M_IvIvS3_ I  '

BETWEEN I

.1.

._.a

£9 I 4.

Q . I

M/S SOUTHERN MINERAIL-.uE'XPORTS_  

A PROPRIETARY CONCERN -- ' «-
REP. BY ITS PROPRIET'O~I2 *  '

SR1. L. SIIIVAKUL/IA39*;,_A I 

S/O SR1. L UMAPATH1

AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,   . 
NO. 1339..f3.1."~IST§;CROSS,-_ ' 
N.C.CO_LDN'£;'I'HQVSPET583201' 

     
     ._   PIEJTITIONER
[By  M C'I:+IIDANANDAI'Y, 

STATE.,OI~f 

R-EPRESEN'fE'D BY ITS SECRETARY TO
~  DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND
_ A - COMMERCE (SSI, TEXTILES AND MINES}
" ~ _ VIKASAA"S_OUDHA, I3ANGALORE--550001


'  DEPARTIVIENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
" NO,49",KHANIJA BI-IAVAN

RACE COURSE ROAD,I3ANGALORE--560001

. 1' SENIOR GEOLOGIST
' "DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY

KOPPAL DIST. KOPPAL

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL.

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF' FORESTS
KOPPAL DIST. KOPPAL

 RESPONDENTS

(By Sri R.G. KOLLE, AGA]

2

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF’ THE C0§\ISTI’I’U’I’ION OF INDIA PRAYIN___G TO
CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS
WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN PASSING

DATED 13.08.2010 ANNEXURE A TO THE
CLAUSE NO. VI WHICH RESTRICTS THEI~..’_GRANT’
PERMISSION FOR ESTABLISHING STOCK- FOR I-. ”
PROCESSING UNIT AND CONSEQ’U«EN’1f1AL_A0C01RCULAR

13.08.2010 ANNEXURE A To THE ‘!;?X’IfE1\IT O-1?’ CI;A.U’:3:E__Nf}_.I

VI WHICH RESTRICIS THE GRANT__OF_ PERl:\{i_1SSION’:.’F’OpR’–u
ESTABLISHING STOCK YARD PROCESSINGQIJNIT-IAND 2 V 0′

CONSEQUENTIAL CIRCULAR “DATED _0’s.2’0IC_ ISSUED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDEIVTV BEARING NO.
SABHOOEE/SToCKYAI_?{1:>_/20″10;¢I1.,_ viDE ANNEXURE B
AND THE NOTICE DATED 14..0_8§2010′ PASSED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT I TERN1INA.’1’1P~1G it _ STOCKYARD
PERMISSION ORANTED To TIIE ‘PETITIONER ANNEXURE C
AND ETC. H
THIS’wRiT;jPETITIOIN’_COIVIINE ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARIDIQ». ,THiS”‘ii:;DAY,, I-._CHIEIE…v”‘JUS1IcE MADE THE
FOLLOVVING j
” “‘~_Q”R’*D E R

J.S.£’.1EIEHAR,h(J.IhF. (oral) :

0 _ the an application preferred by the

1 was permitted to establish a stock yard for

storing,._’st0C’k0 of minerals. During the subsistence of the

Jaforesaid liberty granted to the petitioner, the State

‘Government passed an order dated 13.8.2010

“restricting the grant of permission for the stock yard

only to the mine Owners and those who have processing
plants. A circular dated 13.8.2010 was accordingly

issued by the Director, Department of Mines and

n.

tul-A–mun!

3
Geology requiring the implementation of the order dated

13.82010.

2. Based on the order dated 13.8.2oir.1€_:”;’j’a-e’se.di’ .
the State Government, as also. the “‘
13.8.2010 passed by the Director,

and Geoiogy; the Senior Cieologist;’v~

order dated 14.8.2010 .1_.sto,rf3k yard
permission granted 1 _p Through the
instant Writ vpetitioni'”theiilpvetitioner assailed the
Cancellation’ The solitary
eonteI1tioi1.,%”iVai3f57~Ed”«.11?1l1\’the:-.1earned counsel for the
petitioner” order dated 14.8.2010

adverselyxaffheetsl rights of the petitioner. It is

su15mit.ted, that the aforesaid order could

= lfbeien passed by respondent no.3 without

rules of natural justice. In this behalf it is

1r._submitt’e:d, that no notice whatsoever was issued to the
,.j/f//’})\iti_<3ner informing him the basis for canceling the
stockyard permission. It is further pointed out that no

opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to respond to

any such determination at the hands of the

respondents.

we

U”

4

3. Mr. Kolle, learned Government Advocate.
appearing on behalf of the respondents does not dispute

the factual position noticed herein above;

accordingly states that the impugned

14.8.2010 be treated as a show’-Cauese

liberty to the petitioner to respond the

period of two weeks from It is.asse_rteedeuthat on we

receipt of the reply by the the competent

authority would pass an .order5in aceoij=dai1ce with law.

4. In; niade by the learned
counselr-forerthee’respondents;”W-efhereby direct that the
impugned shall be treated only

as a show “cause -no’t,ice..–issued by the Senior Geologist.

*<.__to petitioner;~———-Ti1e petitioner shall have liberty to

same within two weeks from today,

the respondent shall be free to pass

— ‘ ,_appropriate orders thereon.

5. Since the impugned order dated 14.8.2010 is to

be treated as a show cause notice (in terms of the

submission made at the hands of the learned counsel
for the respondents} the petitioner may continue to use

the land in question as a stock yard till a final order is

5
passed by the competent authority. After the final order

is passed, the petitioner shail abide by the same.

The instant writ petition is disposed of in

aforesaid terms. ‘

txusfice

akc* V
Index: YEN .