High Court Karnataka High Court

S. Mohammed Tanveer vs Sri Kumaraswamy Mineral Exports on 16 September, 2010

Karnataka High Court
S. Mohammed Tanveer vs Sri Kumaraswamy Mineral Exports on 16 September, 2010
Author: J.S.Khehar(Cj) And Chellur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT  

DATED THIS THE 16'?" DAY OF»ASERTEMEEHR»2:0  

pRESENTE%?""
THE HONBLE MR.J.S.KII.EH,AR.A'CHIE.1§f'
AI~:ffI.).V%'jA'»I..    % 
THE HON'BLE MRVS'I4J:LA}_S  CHELLUR
WRIT RETITIONTKIO.'  O....V'{:f;I4r1A/I-MMS)
BET\)VEENJ  % x   

S. MOHAIIIT-M,E,D T2fiE'\TVE.ER, I
S/O. S, AHMELEV-}:I_USSAI'1\1.__ I I
AGED ABOUT 36'Y'EARS'.;._ 
SMART COMMUNICATIONS,
HOTEL RAMESHWAR1 COMPLEX.
KALAMMA STREET,

 '-..BEEI;ARY 4- 583 I'0'T:'  PETITIONER

  ;'T;1'§:I'*KJ3II.T.L'I:';:1:7'3'1:'../EULLA SHARIFF, ADV. ,}

  SRIIKUMARASWAMY MINERAL
=   EXPORTS, REP. BY SP.
 "'-HVIJNKAKUMAR,

1  GENERAL MANAGER,
 _ NO87, S.V. COLONY.
W "NEAR KUMARASWAMY 'I'E1\/IPLE.
" CLUE ROAD.

BELLARY -- 583 104.



I0

2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST.
ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT,
M.S. BUELDING.

DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD.
BANGALORE ---- 560 001.

3. THE FORESTER.

R.M.B. SECTOR,

SANDUR RANGE.

BELLARY -- 583 1.01.

A. THE RANGE FOREST OFF-i'CE__E',"V

SANDUR RANGE.
SANDUR   .»
BELLARY DISTRICT.  '

5. THE CONSEFS'/"A"1'OR  

BELLARY  I    _
BELLAI:{g~'583 21,91.   «-

6. THE; DEPUTY "€.."§ONSvERVA.TOR
OF FOREISTS, I V '    
BELLARYV-I)IVISION.. -- I 
BELLARY 4583 . 10 1 

 V'  .7, 'TEE.-.'PR1-NCIPAL"CHIEF
 .r.:VONSERvA,TOR OF FORESTS.
I -.ARzM\I"[A»-..BHAVAN.

I;IAL.LESm$.IARAM Iom CROSS.
BAN_GALORlE; --- 560 003.

A   TTI~IE..OIREc*I'OR OF MINES
' ..f»AND..GEOLOGY.
I _ I DE.I:>.ARTMEN'I' OF MINES & GEOLOGY
  KITANIJA BHAVAN.
  ..-I=;m FLOOR, RACE COURSE ROAD.
 BANGALORE ~ 550 00:.

9. STATE OF KARNATAKA



5.»

REP. BY IT S SECRETARY
[DEPARTMENT OF' COMMERCE
AND INDUSTRIES [MINES],
VIKASA SOUDHA.

DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI.
BANGALORE -- 560 001.

10. THE DY. DIRECTOR OF
MINES AND GEOLOGY    D M 
DEPAR'i'i\/EENT OF MINES S: GEOLOGY ;,  * = I
HOSPET,   " '

BELLARY DISTRICT.   .'.';iI§ESPONIIE:N;rS'j; 

(BY SRI RG. KOLLE, AGA FOR VVIIESVPONDENTS 1/;S'I'A*rE)

This Writ Petition is f:_Ied;_ '1,1Iu1'(iC1;'1[XI'tiC1€S 226 and
227 of the Constitution Of India p1¥ay:ng._ to direct the
respondents and to (:ons.i_der' --a11d'hO1d" :;j'O'i11t survey as

per AnneXure:E«iDd’ated; 2Q.1,.2.20’1’G~.expeditiousiy and in
accordance with §E_aw byise-Ding a Writtif rnandamus.

This on for Preliminary
Hearing thisfvday{i’fCChief”Justiée passed the following

order: ”

»–

_ _ (Oiral):

__We’«.11:aIIie__ perused the averments made in the

i.rxSSt3.I’1t.V’vW’i’V.ipt. §Iet..itEi0r1. It emerges therefrom, that the

‘tppetitiitmeaj earlier approached this Court. by filing

V’ 2..jfV\ArE’V.iS3’S;’13J'().i.2575/2008 [GJVLMINESJ On the Same cause of

‘ aigtion as the present writ: petition. The Order dated

14.10.2008 passed therein. dispOsin;_g of the same. has

been placed on the record Of the instant writ petition as

Annexure–A. In View of the above, we are satisfied that

the second writ petition on the same Cause of action

cannot be filed.

2. Despite the aforesaid, we have eraquire<}y from

Mr.R.G. Kolle, learned AGA, what had come;"o'ut.V'_of _
directions issued by this Court w.
whereupon, we were informed :'..:tha._1ZAtQS'u"1&"":fC!§'Z.'

completed and that after afiygal ohzief is bevpetstseel,

whereupon necessary aetio1'1__:Wo:u}z:1» be."taA1t::en, 'if called

for.

3. In View of tf1eWebox}se,V that no

further considerationhvis ‘–requife€ft’.i»r1«~.__iihi5 matter. The

instant writ petitionis aceorciirgity d’i.sp”osed of.

Index: yes / no

J; ,1
:3′-5,s€;’ ‘”

gjgggé jtieilfsfi

Sdfii
Judge