High Court Karnataka High Court

P Abubaker vs The Secretary on 30 May, 2011

Karnataka High Court
P Abubaker vs The Secretary on 30 May, 2011
Author: J.S.Khehar(Cj) And H.G.Ramesh
Vfw

»1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN. 

DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY 05* MAY zcyn  .. n .;. 

PRESENT   _ . _
TI-IE I-ION'BLE MR. J.S.KHEHAR, ...msfr:.(:E_
AND  -  V V "

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICZE I:';GfRém§:E$H   
WRIT PETITION No.9598/2010 (GM-V1§((1vI.~$)   '

§_E3_T_WE_.}:3_1'_{;

RABUBAKER. S/O MOHAMMED
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS. ' 
No.4/53, am CROSS " '
M.J.NAGAR§ DAM ROAD
HOSPET 583 203    _ 
KARNATAKA _    V    ' 
REPTD. BY GE:NE:Emj§E;jFOR
8 fr s.R;AN:1_RAI;VHA,_ ACWOCATE}

AND:

1. "mg sECRE'tAfi'¥_  .' _ 
s':Af:'E: OF 'KARNA'-'I"'APiA 
H\f§_DU:'3TI'R}E1S"A1_'§D COMMERCE) DEPARTMENT

V 'fEs'E 'z>:RE€:fr0R OF MINES AND GEOLOGY

 *DE1>A_R':3\;:.1¢:N3foF MINES AND GEOLOGY
__Ng;4.9';~scnsr:fH_i.B:.QcK, KHANIJA BHAVAN

. :3,%DE\/*AVRAJ'[;;URs {RACE COURSE] ROAD
' ;BANG.é's.L{fl;{E 580 801

 mPU':Y EDIREZCTGR
_DEPs%R'I"'MEN'F GF MINES AND GE:{>L()GY

AA ';::Qs?E':' g,.VP.EspoNDE*:~s'rs
$3?' SR2 R<;,§<:CiA'Ef'E
: mR RE 43.';

mvwmmmvmxmmmwmmmmmmm' _.._, ,



 gwwxafix

THIS 'NR1'? PEITITION IS FILED UNDER AR'I"ICLES  

227 09* Tee CONS'i'ETU'I"ION 0? ENDEA PRAYENG  
SL.NO.8 0;: THE: NOT1fFICA'F1ON er? Auefrfzee-'~....eregeir3g para? the petitioner was also granied a

 eeeeiri yard germ}: en ?L1%{}.2.0G§ [Ar::r:ex2;re~E]. Two

eeeejiiéertie weee érieerpcsreieei ir: the perrnii re eséafekleh



 

,4-

4. It weuld be relevant to mentien, that having
arrived at the eeneiueien, that the stock of iron ere

eteeee at Emmihetii village, $3I}di1§' taluk, 

was met genuine, the Deputy Ekireeterg 5 _

Geeiogx", in me first inete:1ce,_};)y are.' N 

11.2.2009? eaneefleei the stock yerd  

to the petitioner, By the afefe;eaie1--'ere1e1f, {fie }pe.:1'f§ie3ne:~ 

was also required to    Stack
stored in the said steVe'1'gzg;g,re%,_'  responded
t0 the  the Deputy
Director,  in order to
dem0netrete}~V;V{}{eie:A:  eiuestion was genuine.
Dieag1;e.ei:'1g  depicted in the response

filed at ef._vtfhe'.~'e'petitioner, the impugned order

 fifii.Q3.2G'1«O...._.ee,rne to be issued, \?Vh€3I'€b}?', the

}23ej::"et§;--V.  Mines $1 Gecfioga Heepet, which

iiriei' a§iee"f:;2i§ified the eueetion of the steel: ef iron ore

 (3Q8{)€} ee:1e of iron ore lumps and 70903 iron ore fines}

 in the petitienere steel: yaré. It is this aetieng

V.  eigainee the petiiienes, eeughi ie be taken threugh the

imgegeeei ewe: eieted 8§3e2§i{} {A::e1ex::re-A}3 ezhieig

bee been eeeefieé by flee peiiiieeer 'eefere thee Ceurt



 

*5-

55. Based at the principal requirement expressed

during the course of hearing, we are safisfiede that--the

instant writ petitien shouid be disposed of" 
direction to the petitioner to furnish Mineral__"D.eie;§é5§ehV_ "e H
Permit obtained by the petitioner"; Hfef'ttjanspo§fiif1_g;: irenynfi

ore from the mine (for \vhiv. 1Fer the aforesaid procedure to be adopted, it

be eper: to the petitioner te fuenish the relevant

   Exéiiiieral Diepeieh Fermits ie the Deeuty Bireeter, Mines

end Geeiegy, wifézirz al peried ef {ave i¥€€§:iS.. A fine}

deeieéezs éhereezea éneieefiing She ve§:éi':.:¢ 5}? %;he Eviéréetel



m

~ 1' AAA
impugned order whereby the respondents are seeking to

auctien the Inaterial stored by the petitioner atfiffzeeir
stock yard in Emmmihatti village, Sandur
stand quashed. ” ‘ ‘– H

Dispesed of in the af0resa:idA’ter:ns”._ _ VV 9

ee.ee eeS:::f%
e”C§:Eei §ElS’€i§:é:
REESE

YD. fg.

Index:¥V’7N”e’ – _ AV