1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 15*" on OF JULY 2009
PRESENT
THE HON'BLl.'-Z MR. P.D. DINAKARAN, CHIEF.V3lJu_:$TIi'{lS ._ ll"
AND %
'ms HON'BLE MR.JUSTIVGE4_V.G,"'SABHAH}f~*f'..A 7 ,
WRIT APPEAL.ff" N0. 288 (fool? (1 GM¥MlV£-$)
Between:
1. the State l,of_,Kal:*Vna'ta1Eqa,, .. "
Rep. By its Secretary 7'; A
Revenue 'Dep.a':'cme:.s't,..A' _ ' '
M.S. Building, «Ami3edl{_a~r_Veed»hE.,~
Bangalore - "560 00i.
2. _ The D;ep'L1'tyA.ComrhisSVionef,
l'€ySOl"e 'Di:#:.rict,. Mysorer'
'3. V"E7hle~'V[5,lrect«9',Fl§l "«' A '-
De;:a:*t_me'rat"of_ I*~1.l'u'ne's & Geology,
i<hani_ja' ahavan, Race Course Road,
A Ba nga'lore-5560 'DO 1.
A A H Deputy "Director of
" _ Mlhes and Geology,
' Department. of Mines and Geology,
"Chamarajanagar District,
'Chamarajanagar. .. APPELLANTS
Basavaraj Karreddy «- Pr|.Govt.Adv. for Applts.)
And:
1. H.N. Nagaraju,
Aged about 48 years,
S/o. Late Mahadevappa,
R/at. Heggavadipura Village,
Santhemaraili Hobli, 1
Chamarajanagar Taiuk and
District.
2. Sri. E-i.M. Kumaraswamy,
S/o. iate Mahadevappa,
Aged about 46 years,
R/at. Heggavadipura Village",-
Santhemaralli Hobli, V ,
Chamarajanagar Taiukv. -
Both are represented by'Lth'_eir _: .. V
GPA Holder Sri. V; An;a'n,tha"'i{um*air,
S/o. LT Venka,taramari'aiah_,,._ ' A'
Aged 58 years, R/'aiti..i,Biiigi'ri, .4 '
B.R. Hilla Road, 1. e , = -
Chamarajanagar District," .. RESPONDENTS
(By M/s. E..EVX_vFirrni"-w Ad\:,VForA'Res~;5t.)
is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka
High: Court ., to set aside the order passed in
w.p.Ne,.,2i1__;9/200005 dated 15.02.2005.
4 'gThis 'Writ'«i_Aopeai is coming up for preliminary hearing on
" "tti.i,s-.da',!, the Court delivered the fo|iowing:-
3
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by PD. Dinakaran, C3.)
The Appellants–State have preferred this~iWr1ijt..:Appea:_:”
against the order of the learned single jz,idge.sdated..’
made in W.P.No.2119/2006, whereinykthe i’ear’ned
holding that the question whether perrnit’toVtraVnsportV’:is ‘required
or not, is set at rest by the case of
State of Karnataka Dund_a;§jAaVda’__VV3SVhetty;;f,:’._reported in ILR
1993(3) Kar. 2065;_antiifolioiiaiinig stated therein
and the subsecgdaaiiyi’V:15raiersjfgipaisysaa ‘W.P.No.17295/2005
disposed of writ petition, with a
direction to the to consider the application of
the respondentsip’eti_tionersA’for'””grant of permission for mining
a:rld’transport;;.i;ionnfoilAowir’ig”Rule 32 of the Karnataka Mines and
Mineral=¢o’n_céssicn*Etuies, 1994.
Theissue.injyoilved in this Writ Appeal is similar to the one
and coynsidered by a Division Bench of this Court in the
4:~-‘.case”3iof. KOKILA v. we STATE or KARNATAKA AND
l silo-meals in Writ Appeal No.972 of 2005 disposed of on 2″” April,
. M”
5
extracting minor mineral from them. We are in
agreement with the view taken by the learned
Judge and the order passed by him does not w.–ari”antg:’
interference by this Court in exercise”, of thi5″”‘Courtt’s’*.. ‘
Appellate Jurisdiction and power.
6. We may also add thatufor agricumliralbb
operations, no conversion, licence,.4’or permit. is-.re’quired” it
whereas for carrying on mining____opera–tions to» extract
minor mineral, conversion”unde_rbSe’ct.’on.,9§.of theHA”ct,
licence defined under 53-ection for their
transportation permit definedfunder_ Section” “2(h) of
Karnataka Minor h’i§;iin’eraii–_ Conrression ‘:.i2L’les, 1994 are
required. Th’erefo«re;’~ petitioners cannot
do mining__top’era’tié;ns without’ conjversion order, licence
and pei;rnit.iv “Cc?isequently,”«the decision in Veeramadhu’s
case hasno ‘application and=rel.’an’ce placed on it is mis~
placed andrlegal contention””urged by the learned Senior
Counsel. placing _reiiance”‘upon the said decision is wholly
” = untt,3W;:ib/.’7-.’f’i:<'..?'aw. ….. .. v
7".» Further' are in respectful agreement with the
'findingsVvandreasohns recorded by the learned single judge
on the contentious points raised in the writ petition, which
hghare an~svvered against the Appellant in the impugned
Lkidgrnent, after referring to the to the rival legal
,_ .con.tentions, provisions of the KLR Act and decisions of
V' the Apex Court and this Court."
8. For the reasons stated above, the writ appeal is
devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.”
6
4. We are in respectfui agreement with the views expresse_d…;by_
this Court in Writ Appeal No.972 of 2006 referred
Accordingiy, foitowing the said judgment,” this _wr”§t-u
disposed of.
% iiiachieiayustice
% Judge
Index: YES / NO .
Web host: YES'
Msk*