I
-1-
IN T HE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALO__RE
DA'I'I:1D THIS TI»-IE 23% DAY OF NOVEMBER. .
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICExr;vGoAPA':;Af}bi¢I[§A'_'_;_ V
AND
THE HONBLE MRs.JUS_T--LcE BA.";'.NA_QAbRA';T HNA
w.p. No.9146-9162'/£3009'IGMQMM./As)_ §
BETWEEN:
VENKATE1G.0WDA -". jj '
s/0. 'I'1lV1Ml';G-OWDA _, _
AGED ABOLYF _70_Y?%3AR_S
KAMALA :: '
W/Q.SWAM'Y:;(}Q\»Vi§A_ ' A' ~
.AGED'A.gfQU':'v'2s YEARS .
1w{A_1.I¥': .GO'\vD'A{ j V .. _
S / 0V._BENDI§=GOW'DA"*--
AG ED .AB0{J'1"- _7 6 YEA RS
K V sIDDARAMHE_A(1owDA
'S%O.KAI,ENKE GOWDA
AGE.D.A'B_OU'f 67' YEARS
_ ¢JKEié;ri~§%yE: <§o*gvDA
S /O.i'CFjUSHNE GOWDA
A AGEDVABOU1' 50 YEARS
r§«mJaE GOWDA
. S/OKALE GOWDA
"AGEJD ABOUT 40 YEARS
CHIKKE GOWDA
S/ OTHAMME GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
KAI.AMi\/EA
W/ C). ERAIAH
AG ED AEBOUT 40 YEARS
IO
11
12
13
14
15
16
A ALI. THE PE'1"I'I'"1ONERS ARE
" R/OVADDARA HALLI
VILLAGE K I3E'I'I'A HALL! POST.
VENKATESH
S / O. KULLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
SI-HVAIAH
S/O. KULLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
V K MANJU
S/OKALASAIAH
AGED ABOUT21 YEARS; _
NARASAIAH
S/O. CHELUVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55y1aARs
MAHADEVA
S/OLAKSHVMAJAH H
AGED ABOUT30
s/0_V'.rEN_KAf1A NA} '
AGED 'ABOEEI 33 __
P RAB 3'A:A1K_' ' - __
S';/_O;'E\/IU'KI_}?'\E~I)"/X. " _
AGEZ)' ABOUT 25 vs-A_Rs;"
_ --SURE'S}'I._:NAIE{'
s/QRAMA NAJK V
Ag'?-VEDA. ABOUT YEARS
~ TAP'A1§VA<rf1AMMA
Aw!/o.,;:;21js:~--iNA NAIK
AGED'AB'OU'I' 38 YEARS
' ;<'I3VE*.I*i'AHA1,L1 GRAMA
PA}'éCHAYA'F MEMBER
PAN' DAVAPU RA TALU K
MANDYA DlSTRIC'I' -- 57'} 435
(By Sri Ravi Varma Kumar. Sr. Counsel for
. PEITITIONERS
M/s. Ravi Varma Kumar Asst:-3', Adm.)
/5;.
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VI 1) HANASOU D HA.
BAN GALO RE- I
THE JOINT DIRECTOR
IVHNES & GEOLOGY
NO. 187. I1'I'H MAIN ~
SARASV\«'A'I'I-II PURAM
IVEYSO RE 570009
SENIOR GEOLOGIST
MENES 81 GEOLOGY
MANDYA 571 432
THE THASILDAR V ;
PANDAVAPURA TALUK_1' '
MANDYA 5701. 43:;
K B13'r1'AI~IAItL-E' GRAMA PAN 'c:1.;:{'A5.2A<:'......7
REP BY ms :3_£;_CRE.f_1"ARYz
PA1vDAV2é.PU'ié;é."<rALU'K0
1:3/IANDYA7DViSafI""57 1A35___ .
M'/s'. sH1vA_d11§LAs-s§jc1A'1'Es
NO.ESl_7.j r?1Rs'_1' I+'1.oQr;<-
V NEW KAN*1ARAJ URS' ROAD.
NEAR VIJAYA BANK.
' KLIVE,MPU NAGAR'
M'.fsQRE,_--23
. RESPONDENTS
D Vijayakumar. AGA for R1-R4;
Sri N R Girish, Adv. for R5:
' L M Chidanandayya. Adv, for R6]
V G _ W..r2f1'1' PE'1'ITi()NS 1211.30 UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF
"«E.O'_'iTI%I:}:"#"gC0NS'l'I'FU'FION OE' 1NI:a:A PRAYING TO QUASH THE
. '1':y:i>ié!(;NED QUARRING LEASE) DEED BEARING NQ683 ANNEXA
V. DT. 29.7.04 EXECLETED BY THE 3RD RESPONDEZNT IN
FAVOUR OF 6TH RESPONDENT.
These writ. pemions Comirlg on for diCt3.t',ing Orders. on
this day, NAGARATHNA. J, made {he i'<)§§()w1'r1g.I{:A 52)
I
9/':-
-4-
ORDER
Though the matters were posted for COI1Sld€I’El'[‘3;’:C’)’fi,.Oi’
Misc. W. 10239 of 2009 for temporary inj’unct.ion~;—-Wi»th_i’
consent of counsel on both sides. the writ.rpet~i.tion1s haye~ _
been heard finally and disposed of can ‘7
2. These writ petitions alrelfiled thy waysoii”a–…ptiblic 2 L’
interest litigation by Village,
Pandavapura Taluk. seelfziiig a two fold
prayer i.e., deeds at
Annexures–__A~ of’; the order dated
27. l2.2v_QQ’8V. produced at
Annext1–re~’E: 7.l.2009 Passed by the
third respondent Vprod.né:ed_.’*at, Annexure~F.
” to”‘ti”1’eV petitioners, they are the permanent
oVf..t::\?addai~aha1li Village. Pandavapura Taluk,
M’andyav_ and are eaking out their livelihood by
agriculture: that Sy. No.80 of Vaddarahalli Village which
‘*l:V’_rnes;sures about 129 acres 24 guntas was originally gomal
iand meant for Cattle grazing and that out of the said extent.
61.33 guntas was handed over to the forest department for
:%
development’: of sociai forestry. /,
-10-
adversely impacted: that innumerable representations for
cancellation of the lease were made by the \~’illagers””i–o the
Talisildar and subsequently the Tahsildar withdyrelwilylltlailea.lno
objection certificate’. Similarly. the Gram Panclvijayat
also withdrawn the licence. Such oi°de’i-s of’lwithrli’awals’–hayc
not been challenged and the licenycingil aut,l1ori’ty
Senior Geologist also car1celle_d”~~.1,he lease dated’
27.11.2008 which was _,.C.l’1all€l’¢1»g’€Cl’:lFl la»revision-petition. but
the Villagers were not l1e’a1’d’ir’it._the revision’ proceedings and
neither has tlierebeen ‘l”dE1€.I”€’1′,1:CQ rnade to the objections
raised by the piibli_c.’_on’ t.lfle_ Sq-uai?i*yi–rig operations.
16. He has ‘draw-.’ri:1..ociir”attention to various annexures in
support oi’l’i’~’:’_ly’1leiv abo_ve¥.sub:missions and has said that the
&_ SiXl_h’3’«:F6S;i3endent’h«a.s…n«ot responded to the Senior Geologists
notice to”it<re:ga_1'ding the licence issued under the Indian
EiiblolsivesSkftcltrciit He has also referred to two unreported
'V decislionsinlsupport of his submissions.
S:-Per contra, counsel for sixth respondent has stated
the Tahsildar gave a report that quarrying operations
would be conducted in barren land and thereafter a
notification was issued and subsequently the lease deed was
executed: that there have been no coni1pl.ain1.s from the year
It
M',
"W
-11.”
2004 till the latter half of the year 2008. but it is only a
motivated writ petition which has been filed through the
villagers in order to destroy the business of the.f”–«si}:th
respondent in which about. Rs. 11 crores has ‘
after borrowing from financial insti.tution_s.Wl”
stated that the blasting operations iisidlone~.on.ly
thrice in a Week and for 20~25″rI}inute~s only thatul’
since the local MLA’s brothery_i_slial_sov.carryingvpniiluariying
business, this writ peti–t’.i:onA tiled against the
sixth respondent. V I~ie:.h;ic:;.. are more
than 90 when there has
been the said quarries, the sixth
i-espoiiderttlliasl out with an oblique motive. He
has irefeyrreda to two reports of National institute of Rock
lP~EiRM} tomstate that the ground vibrations are not
from the quarry. He has also drawn our
attentiovn the cornmunication between the Tahsildar,
l”~Senior’ Qeologist and the Deputy Commissioner who has also
to NIRM. lie has stated that. the quarry has given
efnployrnent to more than 200 people and that any
independent investigation agency may be appointed with
regard to the damage caused to the houses in Vaddarahalli
village and depending upon the said report. the sixth
y/’/’
.,.,«:
-12_
respondent is ready to pay compensation. He has also
brought to our notice circular dated 24.2.1999
quarrying lease in the land not used for pasturage.olo”alld V’
granted but there was a public interest. 4litigat,io4n”ichallenging
the said circular which resulted in
Bench of this court and the.re’aftier the saidv.Vcir_c’ula1i’:was”d
withdrawn and the sarne wasV_.chlal.1ei1ged petition
and the learned single withdrawal of the
circular. He hasaalso dirawnionr’ at1._e11t:ion&”l:ol rule W» 8A of the
rules and the %:_irc5i;in1stances_Vu11_dei wiiich it is applicable.
18. It.”‘”is«._aI;S0iifksubnzitted counsel for sixth
respoiident operations has provided
employi11enlit«<.,to'v the vlillagers and it is also stated that an
«_ indfsfieiideiwt ageAn'ey…may be appointed to submit a report on
the"qouarryiriggoperations and if on account of the blasting
openratioiisfijiftpthere has been any damage caused to the
'V houses andllouildings, then compensation would be paid for
l f the' said damage.
pp Additional Government. Advocate drew our attention to
the fact that the reference made to the Deputy Controller of
Explosives and his report is awaited and that the quarrying
/E/4.
«Kid
_ 33 _
operations is causing damage to the houses in the viliage in
question.
20. In reply. learned senior counsel on
petitioners refuted the fact that there has bee_n]_’no b
made till mid 2008. He h.as stated[:thabt:Ath:ereT have
petitions which have been fi1ed_objec’t–iAng–to the-tiqtjlvarryingdd’
the vicinity of the village in quejs’t.ijo:*; and been
no whisper before any to the
local MLA setting’ up the first time
that such a su*b1:ii£i_ssion=A,_has’ this court.
21. submissions regarding
environrnental of the operation with the
quarry. in qu.es.tion.7′
drawn our attention to Ruie 97 of the
Revenue Rules and stated that there has
been nodorzcier with regard to the reduction of the pasturage
. made in the instant case and that Rule 97 read with Section
‘ i”of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act are appiicable which
* -wnandate a statutory order and that in the instant case no
€
such order has been made. /4-
-14-
23. Having heard counsel on both sides. the following
points arise for our consideration:
i. Whether the lease granted in favour oii the=l_lfs..i§é:t–h___ _
respondent ought to be quashed in viewthe 11911;”
compliance of sections 71. 72._read)}vitl1. s’ectior1V:’68’=efA
the Karnataka Land Reveriue Act:.,_ H364 aridf_i?:u_le of
the said Rules’?
ii. Whether grant of llease ‘b.y7t:l1e_second, respondent in
favour of the -sixth respondenfphas “;est.1lted in adverse
environnientaillgpirripact’-.calling for interlerence in the
rrnatter?’ H
24. lt isulnot. in Vdisputeiptthat the licences issued in respect
oi’ ‘tfitif quarries “i~’n,Vque.stior1 is in gomal lands. Under the
‘circui11sta.nee’S*.v__the procedure for issuance of licences in
have to be complied with by the
auth’oritie.s.concerned. In this context. it would be relevant
it toriadverlt. to the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue
“x1964 as well as the Rules made thereunder as also the
it Wfiules 8[bI, 9. 11 and 12 of the KMMC rules.
25. Sections 71 and 72 of the Karnataka Land Revenue
Act, i964 and circular dated 24.2.1999 issued by the State
:
_ 15 –
Government. came up for consideration before the full Bench
of this court in the case of ‘D C RAMESH AND OTHERS vs.
STATE or KARNATAKA AND OTHERS’
2003 KAR 3789. The circular was also considevredvvlppvi’
learned single Judge of this court in thee
VENKATESHWARA HILL CRUsH1.éH_s”–.g_iND
THE STATE or KARNATAIM-v–.é:trD meme» ;:ep¢it¢e in V
2008[3] KCCR 1329]. V _ p
28. Section 71 of the”‘–Ka1’natla:’+§:’a }’:Jéll’:i€Z1AA”i?_€Vt’3l’lt1€ Act deals
with land that may purpose and
when assigne”dl5fsh_all.Vnot.be__ot_heiwise used without sanction
of the Deputy Conir:ni.ssioi.1’e-«:”§’ While section 72 deals with
i”egulAat.i.on olttse’ot”pastu.rage. In the case of ‘D C RAMESH
” V’ {O”I”HE1zS us.”s”TATE 01:’ KARNATAKA AND OTHERS’
e_repe’l%teei’-Le ritzzvizoos KAR 3789, the Full Bench held that a
reading V.ot’T:seetion 71 makes it clear that the Deputy
V’-».Con1m’issi~oner has power to set apart lands belonging to the
St:atefC’:overnment which are not in lawful occupation for free
pétstu.rage or for forest reserves or for any other public:
purpose and the said lands set apart cannot be used
otherwise without the sanction of the Deputy Commissioner.
Section 72 regttlales use of pasturage only by the villagers to
5;
/”/”
-16-
which the lands are assigned by the rules and orders_i.s_sued
by the State Government and in case of any (ifi’:3:}v3.’i;’,:.'(_.”f;’._..t’i.’.1A’€
decision of the Deputy Commissioner is final.
27′. Further, while scrutinizing thertwoé decisviéonsérendered
by the division Bench in the case
OTHERS vs. STATE AND 0-fangs’ A1.'<;'pQ1't'€V,fd'-ViIi':._ILeR' 2001" '
KAR 2363 and in the.caseVAiofu:"K AND
OTHERS vs. STATE AND OTHERS'
rendered in wpé :'\1'0v.__2s2fa5'/1 em 29.1 1.2000,
which is a the circuiar
dated 23'4."2'. that a circular or a
Govei'nfr_1ei;it the same ei'fect of conveying
guidelines it for considAe~rati.on. of an application for grant or
A' renV_e'x'3*ata1: of qV'L1arr§iiig..i.i.e'ence according to the fact situation of
'eac'h. ecas_e*ir'1'«vaccordance with law and that the circular dated
2?%,.2';~i9Q9~.v-Vgaisviissued pursuant to the decision of the
j Gove'i"nrneni:" to provide opportunity for quarrying in
"..:'.pas1'.uArage land covered with large granite and hard rocks
which circular was issued in modification of the earlier
" Wci1'culars.
28. In the case of ‘SR1 VENKATESHWARA HILL
CRUSHERS AND ANOTHER Us. THE STATE OF
ii.
//fw’
-17″
KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER’ reported in 2008 [3] KCCR
1329], a learned single Judge of this court eonsidered_rtl_ie
validity of the Circulars issued by the State
prohibiting the grant or renewal of quarry iiiigomalll
lands and held that only such of thosle.lgonialhlilyandlsu
can no longer be classified asgonial lands on ;ie’eoun1 of the
sanie being largely covered rocrianfland not fit as
gornal land and on lanvdslx that the
authorities could take AAst_e:l’ps_ granting of
quarrying However, it
does not eXpi’ess provisions of the
coniers jurisdiction on
the set apart the lands for free
paste.-rage for ainygiveri village is in any way curtailed.
decisions would have to be read in the
71 and 72 of the Karnataka Land
Reyenue ‘Act read with rule 9714] of the Karnataka Land
Reuenuve Rules. Rule 9714} provides for free pasturage for the
ratltle of each village and the same enables the Deputy
it ‘””Corn1nissioner to reduce the pasturage below the prescribed
limit if he is of the opinion that the area already set apart is
much larger than what is really required and such rejection
can only be aller Oblalllliig prior perinission of the l.’)ivisional
Z,
.,.»/fly,’
-18″
Commissioner. The proviso to sub-rule [4] of rule 97 of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Rules states that no V.-‘.~’3’uCh
permission is required where the rejection bel.olw.”h”–the
prescribed limit is for the purpose of [al dtstribL1~i’.ionVoihliiohtise V’
sites to the siteless persons and 1b}Vgram.. of persons~..
belonging to scheduled caste and
agricultural purposes who are«.__oi=dinarii§,r__ residerits”‘of such ”
village and {C1 regulationto LiVr1au.t’hoi’ized cultiv.at;j,.on under
chapter–XlII-A. Therefore; contemplated under
rule 9714] oi: Rules is
mandatory not followed, the
lease g.ranted’vJould3lnot in accordance with law.
30. Keeping , the aforesaid decisions and
partiieula’rly ‘~pro_cedL1re contemplated under Rule 97 of
~th”e __Land Revenue Rules and on perusal of the
rnaterial’o’_n._ record. we find that. there ha.s been no order
passedhunder Rule 97 of the aforesaid rules while granting
it perrnissiori for quarrying operations in the instant case.
“thlough the Talisildar has given his no objection to the sixth
it “resporident. AI1I1€3Xiii’€:-G is the RTC in respect of Sy. No.80
which shows that it is gomal land and is in the possession of
the forest departnierit. and ihe same measures 67.38 acres
out of which 61.31 acres is vvitlt the {crest department. The
.«*”(.«’
32.
a.fore;said_ exterrl _oflgo1rial land for the purpose of setting it
in the ivristarit case. Also, there is no material forthcoming
violation of the aforesaid provisions of law:
-20-
application. Any other int:erpret”at.ion to mean
that no notification is required jor the grant of-=__
virgin. quarry, would only lead to ttnreasonable.._
and arbitrary exercise of power attracting Artirsle. .i
14 of the Constitu.t’ion of India, and therejor’e”‘the~ .. ;_.
same has to be discouraged. because itjwould
be difficult for a person interested .
knowledge as to the availabilityrrofglandjorgrant _
of lease without any notif’it;ation,g ttniessi’s_uCh<.__
interested person has links"-gwi–th" bureaucrats.» "
and has sources to C1(,'Cj_LtiI'e the 'sarne,.v~E9«:cept
where the State propose
applications on priority prescribed" under Ritle
12(t}{i) to {vi}. in__all other _circ'u.mstan"ces,H even
where the select'ton~..of the appl.i'catfions_fall under
'all others' categoryvtattrocting Rtile._il2{I){uii}, the
only reasonable option ii)ottld._-'bev–to _notify the
area available for""ptr.blic" auction want of
gttideiines"i.n"_'t:he Rulesto gioefprioriig among all
others} Thegispower _conjer_rea.ttnder Rule 8~B of
the F3ules'=h"as–V._to'"h'e_ excetfcisecl' with the close
}:3'r'OXiFI1lll_j} to'fi.; "the–_ desiretiiiipttblic interest to
augm.en't" triQi'e«reL'-enue to the State. "
"fheiiefore, it uias .ne'e._essa.ry that an order reducing the
thefipurpose of quarry purposes had to be passed
'ij<:§§pi.1l}l'f'C'O¥I1l"niSSi0I'1€I' and which has not been done
'"«__l"'tlj1at ihe…procedure prescribed under the KMMC Rules has
lbeenfioiiowed in the instant, case.
‘Under the circumstances, whiie answering point No.1,
V we hold that the grant of licence in the instant. case is in
,/E:/..
to” constcier”*._titeu
-21-
34. That apart.. the other aspect. of the matter. namely.
point No.2 for consideration is with regard to the
environmental hazard that has been caused by the qi.ia’a:ry~i.11g
operations. It is not in dispute that the sixth resp_:oi’1’de’r;–i..__ha_S{‘ _
been using high explosives for mcarrying”‘v–o.t:i*tblhilasptiriig
operations. Annexure-L shows photogi*a.phsa..with*- re~gardrV:.tol
the cracks and damage in the hkousese.ol*vadd.araVh.a_lli
which according to the petitio11VersLis_VVon acc.oiint, oi? the said
operations. There are.._:a-‘.so7_lph§otog.raplis which show the
drying up of the tank o’i’*~.thel..’jsettlernent of fine
rock d.tiS’t1’»E1i;iC.:’. saidptanllr. ‘i’a’o.t..vt:)ei11g useful for drinking
and agricultural ‘ * l
35. ,–As far ._as~viniri-ing and quarrying operations and
“”Aentriron.ment«is coricerned. it is necessary to observe that
Iniafiing:’o–perat.i_o’iis are inherently hazardous in nature and it
not_onIy the natural resources. but also affects the
iiving”7~the people around the mines. Further mining or
“<d'_qtiar'ryi.ng activity close to township and villages have a
tendency to degrade environment as it affects air. water, soil
and impairs the quality of life of the inhabitants of the area
and therefore. a greater responsibility is cast on the miners.
In the context of having inirsing operations in the vicinity of
,/2».
_ 22 IV’
towns and villages. a due diligence exercise of the quantum
and degree of pollution and the impact that a mining rtctivity
would have on the inhabitants surrounding a pml_r1ee.wo;t1ldV.
have to be done at the outset before giving’l”-a:ny:p’_kind
permission or grant viswa~vis ad miitin_g–, acti.vit«y_.V
regulatory authorities have to act.__ with utlmostv, ‘~care’–~iln~_u
ensuring compliance with th’e–.j}a.rious=.safegt;;ards§l”claims it
and standards by entrepxjeneitrs’; to avoiddamagge to
environment, natural resolu1’ces5.’ ;’pe_op.lv’e’1s” -life, health and
property.
36. In ‘tl1§..$flVCTf5’1’lttj§’3;’€; relevance to refer to a decision
of thel-.VApe2; Co”urt._p MEHTA vs. UNION or INDIA’
reported’ ‘”4016 wherein the concept of
sustainable”deve.lopme_nt”‘has been explained. in the eontext
Zdeveloprnent ____ “activity wherein the principles of
~spustainvableidevelopment are applied and at the same time
,.1,;he__ is not degraded. According to the Apex
Co~…i_rt, a. balance has to be struck in such matters. it is also
releva.nt.:/tot note that if an activity is allowed to go ahead,
2 .. there may be irreparable damage to the environment and if it
is stopped there may be irreparable damage to economic
ml.}1t’€I’€Sl. in such cases. it is the protection of environment
which should take precedence over economic interest
yr/’~*”
– 23 _
according to t.he Apex Court. The precautionary principle
accepted by the Apex Court in various dicta requires
anticipatory action to be taken to prevent
can be prevented even on a reasonable stispie-ion.and’ t’
not necessary that there should be ‘diie<:t vhiarrrr
t.o the environment.
37′. A mining lease holder tottvconiplir
statutory provisions such as the–Enviro..nr11entt Protection Act.
1986 and the acts and control of
pollution of aii*,4’_vv’a1_.er. ro’i+ésiVIi§ig}’,i..;;is_w§11…;i;;”ihe rules framed
under –so”-that alifiilossible precautions for the
protecti–on’* of venviro.nri<ie4nti_:and'control of pollution is taken
while corid.ucti.ng.aTniin.ing operation in an area. In
M.C;.:MEHTA'SV'tcase_____reier'red to supra, the Apex Court has
~s:tat¢hd .,Vti1at_Lt'i–n__ majority of the eases, the environment
cori'cer'nts ignored by the mining community in order to
maii:'e quick". profits. The mining operators would cause
disit;.urba"nce of l.and surfaeejdrainage pattern and iand use
tbesidtes cause pollution probiems which wouid lead to
" "-erivironrrierital problems of air. water and noise pollution and
solid waste pol.l.utior1. Therefore. the Apex Court stiggested
that short. term and long term action for restoration of
E'.I1\-'iI'(")1'l1'E'l(:'.1'"it quality of the area should be zprepared
,/'77..
.,24_
separately. by the State Pollution Control Boards and
Government Agencies for enforcement of the environryn-ental
laws for the restoration of the environmental qualii..yd’o.f:’–t.he
area. Monitoring programme should include ~frequen’eyl ”
monitoring air quality. water quality-,’ ‘gro–i1ynd-l_4wate’r’-and n_o,ise.c
level etc. As far as protection of water..resources–.in
areas are concerned. it was suggested ti1.at’i.n o_rd”er”to draw ”
water resources managernentyplalne.it*is esse11vti.alyA..i;§o assess
the water quality of the of the Hydraulic
Cycle i.e., stream} Noise arising
out of or controlled by
the lessee Aaitlfthyeinksource so to keep it within the
permissi’Dle”limi”t.s.A’ V’
«_ 38v:»~’~i.’ifhe in1bValanc_e’__&which has been caused to ecology and
‘f,!l’l’€_VCGI1St3€{i1L(;Z’I1l”‘ hazard to the healthy environment due to
raining Vop’je–rat;_i.ons was taken note of by the Apex Court in
theta” ‘RURAL LITIGATION AND ENTITLEMENT
DEHRADUN vs. STATE or U.P.’ reported in AIR
SC 652. in that case certain lessees of limestone
it “quarry was directed to close down their operations
permanently. The question as to how the lessees were to be
comperisated for Closing the mines. was answered by stating
that it was the price that has to be paid for protecting and
/’Z’.
-25-
safeguarding the right of the people to live in a healthy
environment with minimal disturbance of ecological balance
and without avoidable hazard to them and
homes and agricultural lands and undue a_ft~ect’aiti.or1~.Vof.airs
water and environment. At, the same titnfe, ldirect~iot’is-,,iWe.r.ef
given to the State Governrnenit-._that iflessees»”barn/:§1’an;ted,
then those whose business isfito be closed’ should be
accornrnodated. Concer’n”was_ aliso for the workmen
who were likely tobe V
39. There; “ha§.z¢7».bt;eh f1′–:_i_:s’tanc’es.lV_’where the High Courts
taking i:t_.h_e the Apex Court in the
aforemventi*oi1edllvdéCision”have expressed opinion that where
there is lindliscrin1in’ate,operation of mines, which have
proved h’a.zardotis_to natural wealth and environment then
uconrtsvhave no option but to intervene wherein even
c-lohsureVoif”_’~mini’ng operation can also be ordered. Such a
dechisionpwoiild be in line with and promote what is provided
tinder articles 48-A and 5l–A(g) of the Constitution of India
provide that the State as also the citizens are under
it obligation to preserve. safeguard and improve the forest,
flora. fauna. rivers and lakes and all other water resources of
w a K’ I”
li(“3(3§3iI1g the ecological batance unal’l’ect:.edLi.ask whichLnot
the cotintry. Fttrther preservation oi’ the envirjnrnent tin;
29/»
2
-26-
ei5’5-
onlylgovernmenti. but also every citizen must undertake. It is
a social obligation and a fundamental duty as enshririedeyin
Article 51~A(g} of the Constitution. Therefore expi’o’it:atio:nii’
mineral resources may be in the interest of ind–uVstrival=.grow1h”
of the country, yet, mines should not
they disturb the ecology or aifect the._livelihoo*ldA.and
condition of the people surroundi’ngx,f’the miriesl
40. There have been Apex Court and
other High Cot;.rts.__in ivoflglered for total
stoppage oi} :§–perlei_aie’1a..s5 in LITIGATION AND
OF U.P.’ reported in
AIR Court’. directed total stoppage of
mining op’e.1jati,ons._ lie: CEMENT LTD. vs. STATE or
p_ U.1?;.{. rveportedx’i’11.Vl(19Q3) suppm sec 571, the Apex Court
not ‘perTnit_ the cement factory to be run in the valley
where niilriingzloperations in relation to limestone quarries
stood sltoppled. The only direction that was given was to
aciconimodate the petitioner~factory at some other place. in
QUARRY WORKS vs. STATE OF GUJARAT‘
it “reported in AIR 1987 SC .1073, the application seeking
renewal oi’ a lease after the enforcement of Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 was disallowed. In ‘INDIAN
COUNCIL FOR ENVIROLEGAL ACTION vs. UNION OF
Zée.
_ 31 W
peak particle velocity of 5 min/ s is recommended as safe for
the structures in Vadderahalli village.
44. In another report at AnneXure~R18 given by Dr–..___V R
Sastry, Professor of Mining Engineering & Dean.
Institute of Ecology. Karnataka, it is stated.-.4’tiia§t.:Vu.s’ei V’
explosive energy to fragment therockygmassvélinfmiiiesr is
associated with adverse side effects li}ie”g1’ou*n_d .vib1’ati*o.ns;:
air blast and fly rock. The vibrations’Vd.an1age ” it
to structures and annoyance to _re_sid_ents i1’1–.rieiAgiibour’ing
areas in case the intensity is above. tliefthresliold values. Fly
rock can cause deamageto’str’uctt:_res in t.ht{–./ieinity and may
result in fatal accident, ifa.pi*oper care is not taken. in some
cases, Ilyu”»i_fod(:k lp_1’oble’in._”_.’e’may lead to closure of quarry
ope»1*a_tioris due ‘”to_danf1age involved. In the context of sixth
»respondent,o§;.erating the granite quarry for the supply of
<:ruslied"'_stoi1,e"V material for construction activities in
Pari4davaApdi"a Taluk is concerned, it is stated that the cycie of
operations in the quarry consists of drilling, blasting,
Riaoadirig, transporting and crushing. It is noted that there is
t it '"'difference in elevation of 30 to 40 metres between quarry and
the village. village being at a lower elevation and therefore it
is advised that the blastin the quarry should therefore be
planned in such a way that t.l1e1'e no effect. of ground
/"1 é
-32-
vibrations and fly rock on the domestic structures of
Vadderahalli village. As far as ground Vibration-share
concerned. it is stated that if they have sufficientf_’en’er§§3-ii _
can cause damage to structures. If the seve1’~’~ity:’osi’ the«.blast’~..
vibrations increases there can
building in the following ways;
Dustfalling from oldlipldster ‘
Extension Q”)’7Q_id. plzislt’er.:lc:’rdl’c.’«:_s it
New plasterllcraekforinatiod .
Ptasltéfi-“drop._ ini iarge”‘arecis .
.<hSfi:*=P°¥'°-3
«T; -. Ejj.;rthe§{:.;seoere'danittge' to building"
45. Itflis’ 4sta.tedlf~in’qeategorical terms that the human
pe1’ceptionlliol_’V ground iribra.~tion is as low as 1 rnrn/s. Certain
recoinnieiidyations’«were made with regard to the blasting
‘opleration’st liillléf’ said report.
aforesaid reports. we do not find any
‘V rnateli-ial”l.aw.hlich states that the standards issued by the
ll_*,Poiiliu_tionl Control Board vis~a–vis quarrying activity in
— tjuestion have been complied with by the sixth respondent.
it ”’On the other hand, there is a categorical condition stipulated
that the quarry should be closed down in case of any
x?»
* assistaiiee . A,
_ 33 _
complaints of public or nearby residents. Though initially
the Senior Geologist. gave a report on certain aspects of the
quarry prior to the cormnencemem. subsequently it is___seen
that the Tahsildar. Pandavapura, K Bet.tahalljiV”–.:._Granj
Panchayat have given reasons for withdrawal of..A4″1″}–o ‘
certificate issued in favour of the sixth_4res.po’nVden;i 0″‘
Senior Geologist also issued show cause “notice ffour’–~_the
cancellation of the tease andf._s”u.bsequ’ent1y_ datedv 0′
27.11.2008 directed that ail minifrigpaciivitjk hevvstorfiped with
immediate effect citing ‘t;hVe?.damagt: to the houses in
Vadderahalli xrillage an:dl”ii’i€.:’BdV’i3i’SE’ of rock dust on
sur1’ou._ndingfff’ and fodder. Under the
circ’urnst’ances,’ we’–j.’are”—.o.f*the considered View that the
reports _relied., upon fbythe sixth respondent are of no
that the Tahsildar has withdrawn the ‘no
ot)jeuct.io’na certificate’ issued in favour of the sixth respondent
aside-perV}\nnexure–P dated 30.9.2008 though reference has
‘hbeenfrnade to the ‘no objection certificate’ issued on 9.7.2004
00 “and the licence issued on 6.9.2008 and there is a reference
also to the letter dated 21.8.2006 written to the Senior
Geologist, explaining the harm caused on account of the
mining aet.ivity and letter dated 6.9.2008 requesting for
M.”/t
-35-
is dated 1.12.2008. The report of the gram panchayat on
this aspect of the matter is at Annexure–J.
48. Annexure ~¥ L to L23 are photographs ”
damage caused to the houses of Vad’dara.hal’i_i V_illlage. lWlh.ile~.t it
Pmnexures ~ M to M37 are photographs–A.A_d’epictin;.g-the
tank and surrounding areas of .aridVVA-nn’e;Xure-“N is ” V
a copy of the represemationpsldatepd. l’l~4p.7.fiOG6_ said
representation is made to the Taluk.
Thereafter, the the licence
as per Senior Geologist
at Mand3’a.has:lstat:ed_ being used to make holes
or explosives are being used for
quarryinglaet.ivit3t’whieh i:s’_.’eeausin.g damage to public life and
13ropertyI* l–lel’lhasvvrel”erred to the ‘l’ahstldar”s letter dated
20{l8’«.to.’VA:s’tat.e that the trenches at the mining spot on
‘olI’ythe.”u.se of high capacity explosives have caused
darnage~–l:to”t”he houses at Vaddarahalli Village and the same
hasbeen videographed: that complaints have been received
llfroinj the villagers with regard to the rock dust settling on
‘””agi*ic’ultural lands which has affected cultivation of the said
lands and that show cause notice was issued to the sixth
respondent to which reply was given; that there has been
\:’l{)l’c1′{‘,lO1″1 of section 18[8]. [E01, 36[2] [3] and 6E2} of the
z§,,.,,,
X .»
-86-
KMMC Rules and that when spot inspection was conducted
along with the Tahsildar. Pandavapura. drilling by ring—bore
machine was found in the quarrying spot and
“l’ahsi1dar has withdrawn the ‘no objection lette~.r.l’:.:”’a ”
Senior Geologist, found that on aecou–nt ‘l:.aforesaid~.i
violations and in public interest, tithe. fninirig’licenee’*.b’e–..
cancelled with effect. from 27. and __with a dtrectiojn to ” it
remove the machinery being roused’-l’or.._minirigvfroth quarry
lease area.
49. The said l:;j;aiicelEat,ioi”{ll ‘:.”c’h.al.l:enged before the
revisional at1t.h_or_ity.2″ ‘1e1_ov?f’cv&e’1′;AAi’ it} is only the revisional
aut.l1ority without’:’tal{ing*into coiisideratioii the reasons as to
why the licetlltringl”au’t:horiity had cancelled the licence focused
its .att’.e11’t.io1i olniy. on the non–payment of the royalty by the
and subiect. to the payment. of the balance
r.oy.afI.tyl.’l the order of cancellation of licence by his
order a’tV:1.\riiiexure–E. In lact. a perusal of Ar1r1exure~E which
isvthe border of the Joint Director cum Revisional Authority
dated 27.12.2008, no doubt relers to complaiiits made by
it “the residents of Vaddarahalli village and the visual
representation in form of CDs and the scieiitific investigation
report carried out by the 0rgani?.aI.io11 of the (}overnrnent. of
-37-
India. but without referring to the contents of the same, t.he
revisional authority simply states as follows:
“During the course of hearing. the nonpayment
huge amount. of royalty arrears was obsemedforvfl’–_:
which the learned Advocate prayed the :”
Authority to give sufficient time as the 4.
is running in financial ‘i–l.ot«.qeuerl:_”
counsel has agreed to pay ouistlanciing’ it A
arrears of Rs.66,29,O4″7_/~.._Vbefore xIestoiraltio§n../_VQf
quarry leases and the balantee will within
thefinancial year”end.” *
50. On the basis oflthe fsai’cij:’subri1i.ss~ion, the revision
petit.io,jil\i\lrasi’ direetion to collect 50% of the
outstanding- alrrearsioftt’r0§ra»l.ty’ only after which the files were
to be_pr0CessVecir,forrestoration of quarry lease and the
to t>e””Colleeted before the end of the financial
A further direction was given to the
co’rif_:ljil>et:en.t:tiauithority i.e., the Senior Geologist to make
l”.__freque*nt”:risits to the quarry sites to ensure that the sixth
“«:”res1:$ondent was following the recommendations of
it i§l3;1RM/NITK scrupulously and that it would adhere to the
KMMC Rules. ‘i’he1*eafter, vide Annexure~F dated 7.1.2009.
the quarry leases were reslorecl by the third respondent –
Senior Geologist.
-38-
51. We are of the \-‘i€W t.hat the revisional authority has not
applied it.s mind to the reason for cancellation of t,he”li.c_’en’ce
although initially the very same authority
licence. Had the reasons been looked» into by’the’jre§fisi_ona.lV
authority. the order at Annexure i.’\_fotiVldZn_o’t
passed. In fact, Annexure–‘F is a- letter by the
third respondent to the seconyd___r’osp’o_ndent 16.12.2008
refers to 264 COH1p1aiI1tS:’ii1a(3<3 held by the
villagers of Vaddarahal].1-Village: niaterial has also
been ignoredby second:.respondent.""'"
52. is on:V€.record’_’ thatthe senior geologist issued
notice underythe.yEi}§r)lobs’iVe’s«Act as per AnneXure–K. But. the
sixth –r.espon’de_nt’has failed to respond to the same.
~ It is alsonecessary to not.e that: counsel for the sixth
H a statement at the Bar that: if an
independent committee is constituted and in the event of
there being any “finding regarding damage caused to the
of the village in question. the sixth respondent. would
it “be liable to pay compensation. This submission would not
assist the sixth respondent for the reasons we have assigned
during the course of this order. Monetary compensation is
19:»
not the re1’nedy in Stttfh cases.
-39-
54. It is the duty of this court to take into consideration in
appropriate cases when attention is drawn to coiieern;s._ovf
persons in the vicinity of mines or quarries v’i7s_~2a–.v’is ‘
daily living and also with regard iiolultlie.
have sustained to the houses and l”-properti–€s*.and,_”thVep_
environmental threat they t’ace’v.._arid act in vrith it
law. It is in this context thati”poirit ‘No.2 isdalsouanswered
against, the sixth respondent; it
55. Apart ‘itro’in~:the list of quarries
produced Government Advocate
that 5’ of Vaddarahalli village
paiichayat, as on date there have been
no com.plaints.,n1adve as such. However, it is only in respect of
l”the”particular quarries in question that these writ petitions
” However, that would not mean that the
order p_a-sseéjd in these writ petitions would be only restricted
to the qirarrie-s in question.
The fact that there are about 90 quarries within
V “”Pandavapura Taluk having been brought to our notice. we
are of the considered view that the authority which has
issued licences in respect of the quarries mentioned in the
said iist would also consider as to whether the quarrying
‘/w
58.
Writ. petitiorls are allowed.
-41-
Parties to bear their own costs.
AN/-
Rule is made absolixm.
