High Court Karnataka High Court

S Mohammed Tanveer vs The Union Of India on 14 October, 2008

Karnataka High Court
S Mohammed Tanveer vs The Union Of India on 14 October, 2008
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & V.G.Sabhahit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALoRE:""»T.

DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OC1'OBER 2093.'  " 

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. RD. BINAKARA.;!§I';A'VC3:FiIi?',F'.  

ANI) . %

THE HON'BLE MR.JUsT1CE:v..G. $AB}_+:IAH_"iT "~    

WRIT PETYTION Nc);4.1.i:57s:/mggmus*«£(:rh§:M1NEs}

BETWEEN:

S. Mohammad Ta13.\}€;éz. H _  
S/0 S. Ahmed-1~Iussajn," -» '   
Aged 34 years," V' " %   V'
Smart Communiéations,' , .

Hotel Rameshwazi Camplax, "

Kalamma .S1reei;,  & V _

Bf:11ai(y--583 .101,  A. H """ "  PETKFIONER

(By    Adv.)

 Fm; Union éfindia

.._!"x'&:}i). by its Secietary,
_1\r!inis1:iy'Of Mines,

V"   1§')e]11i--1lO 001.

 

 



V.   Niloufer Akbar, Government Advocate for R-2,3 as 5)

2. The State of Kamataka

by its Secretary,

Dcpaxtment of Commcrce

and Industries,

M.S. Building,

Dr. Ambcdkar Vechi, V  b
Bangalore-560 O01.  

3. The Director of Mines

and Geology,

Government of Karnataka,
Khanija Bhavaa,

Race Course Road,
Bangalore-560 O0 1.

4. Union ofindia,   '

Rep. by its  '  
Ministry of Enviifonmcnt *  A
and Forest, '
C.G.O. Co;é11p1cX;*'  
Lodhmoaci, - ' .   "
New De1hi--1-3.0 001; _ * 

5. The Chief Consérvatoréf  

Forests, Kcndriya  V

     A ..... 
17th Main Raad, 
H  
Banga1¢m--56'C.,,o34;V"'

 6. M] s  Mineral
 ~. 
"' ¢A~--p'au'111ership firm with
 ._It&y"1~2gis'i£€red oficc at
 Nch211'CaVlony, Bel1ary--583 101.
f __Rép. by its Partner,
T  Nagana Gowda.  'RESPONDENTS

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227’nof»thc
Constitution of India praying to direct Respondents 4 _”{-5′ ‘to

consider and take appropriate action on the representatiotnaot’ the

petitioner at A1mexure–K dated 2.7.2007′.

This Writ petition coming up for

the Court delivered the following.
J U D G M§.;__N T

(Delivered by RB. Co.) H’ V}
Even though the eouasei’*Vfor.::’t3t§§e»t_oC?itio11er submits

that the 6″‘ respondent: out of the

limits of the by the Competent
Authority ane{‘–:h{e. to by the petitioner by
its letter (fated men s fietifioner has failed to funaish the
‘t.o~the following:

(i)_ granting Mining Lease in favour of
A the.t3*’%’i4j’:;etspondent;

‘i’}iesextent of land to which mining lease was

” — with suxvey number, taiuk and district;

Vt ” Whether the said lease is still in force; and

V f r _ 1Tnc¥_¢x:” “s}é’s/ No”

(iv) To What extent, the 6th respondent exceeded then”-.,_
limit prescribed under the lease. T

(2) Without the above paI1:icula1s,’ it is

the above writ petition. However consigie’rjx’1g.th:e V:of7%:he’g

public, sufice it to permit the pctitionereto ._

detajis and give a fresh xepresentatiefirtoé ‘V V

inviting as to the violation committed; by :’t1ji1eE31F* xesgiondeengtc, who is
operating the iron ore mine the’ considered by
the Competent Authority on xxgeiifs o.ftt”v=-7 due notice

to the 6″‘ Ies;f;:0ndeiiAtj;3is()x.VVA:’«_

(3) The -writ i$e’ti:fifi011.’is «.%I5.s§§sed of aecggdingly.

sd/–

Chiei iurstice

Sd/-§__
Judge

/’ ”

5,