{"id":99636,"date":"2009-06-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-06-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sri-shanthipriya-minerals-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-25-june-2009"},"modified":"2018-05-15T22:35:01","modified_gmt":"2018-05-15T17:05:01","slug":"ms-sri-shanthipriya-minerals-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-25-june-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sri-shanthipriya-minerals-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-25-june-2009","title":{"rendered":"M\/S.Sri. Shanthipriya Minerals … vs State Of Karnataka on 25 June, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S.Sri. Shanthipriya Minerals … vs State Of Karnataka on 25 June, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & V.G.Sabhahit<\/div>\n
At t_ Btanggaiore -- 560 001 \n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\nDATED THIS THE 25m DAY or JUNE 2oo9_'t:  T.\n\nPRESEET\n\nTHE I-ION'BLE MR. P.D. DINAKARAN; CHIEF J'\u00a3fVS:\"I'.I_\u00a2VI'.-27*  \n\nAND _\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUsTIcE:V.G. sAEHm?--11T1T;'Vt'   \nWRIT PETITION No.994s %oT\u00a3't2eG\u00e9j\u00a7gM--MMT4s'1tV\n\nBetween:\n\nM \/s. Sri. Shanthijef\ufb01rai'Mtner'al's.\u00a7(P}.I;tci;-; \n\nRegistered under the\"-C.p\u00bbmpanie's-- Act, 1956,\nRepresented  .Manafg'er, ' GPA Holder,\nSri. Ramakrishna CVh\u00a7;a~n_a1n\u00bbSettyvm' -\n\nS \/ o. Venkateshwara Raogy   -~\n\nAged about 33 years,   '\n\nHospet. -V ' PETITIONEJR\n(Eyes. D...i}'.,RaQ -- AdV.\"\"fo'r Petr.)\n\nAND'   t\n\n    State \n\nReprese1nte'd'  its Secretary\n\n..  'Department of Forest, Ecologr 85 Environment\nV   Building,\n\n 'Bf; Ambj\u00e9;-dkar Veedi\n\n\n\n2. The Forester,\nN.E.B. Division,\nSandur Range, Bellaxy.\n\n3. The Range Forest Officer,\nSandur Range,\nSandur, Bellary District.   \n\n4. The Deputy Conservator of Forests, \nBellaxy Division, Bellary.\n\n5. The Director of Mines 8; Geology,  \nDepartment of Mines 85 Geolog\/,0.-----  \n\"Khanija Bhavan\", 5th Floor;._ 'V V ,  ~  \nRace Course Road, Bangalore\u00bb-56.0,i':001\u00a7' :2'   .\n\n6. The Deputy Director     2\nDepartment of     \nHospet.  \"\"      RESPONDENTS\n(By Sri.Basav'araj. Govt. Adv. for Respts.)\nThis ;w--ri.t petitionis fiiedihunder Articles 226 and 227 of\n\ntlieiflons-titution  Indiapraying that this Court be pleased to\nquash the .If'ir_stiIv11fo1*mation Report dated 19.02.2009 bearing\n\n FOC  filed by the second respondent in the\n\ni7,FCiot1rt of the .IMFnC,ASandur, vide AnneXure--L and to quash the\n_.  ordere dated 19.02.2009 passed by the second\n\n vide Annexure~K and etc.,\n\n  .0  writ petition coming up for preliminary hearing this\n\n  the Court delivered the following\u00bb\n\n \n\n\n\nJUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
(Delivered by P.D.Dinakaran, OJ.)<\/p>\n
1) Whether the report of the Lokayukta  .<\/p>\n
basis for registering the First Inforrnation   <\/p>\n
19.02.2009 against the petitioner and to  <\/p>\n
19.02.2009 seizing the iron ore allegedgg to here <\/p>\n
in the forest area as Well as the tools, ipvehircles and.1_na,o\u00a7hinery
\nused for such illegal miningljand0W1fi–e1.he1″.i.i:s1,ichV FER and the
\norder of seizure   the power of<\/p>\n
judicial revieyv  .Articie’\u00ab22’6__ of the Constitution of India,
\nare the questionsi that our consideration in the<\/p>\n
present  “petition”. ~  V <\/p>\n
 :2)’  is a registered Company under the<\/p>\n
 iixct, 1956. Originally, the Government of<\/p>\n
-..i.i’_Mysore executed a mining lease to an extent of 200 Acres<\/p>\n
 ‘:~.l.l(80.9i’2v}:1et;tares) in R.M. Block, Sandur, Bellary District, in<\/p>\n
. ‘ii.ia\u00a7\u00a7\ufb01rgg’.%o\u00a3 K.C. Thimma Reddy, for a period ending upto<\/p>\n
094.308.1976. The said mining lease came to be renewed on<\/p>\n
J\/,.. ._<\/p>\n
?”w…\n<\/p>\n
20.03.1991 by virtue of mining lease No.2119 for a period of
\nten years. Subsequently, the said mining lease was
\ntransferred from K.C. Thirnma Reddy in favour offthe<\/p>\n
petitioner on 29.11.1991.\n<\/p>\n
3) The undisputed factual rnatripxmof the*c’ae:\u00e9j*’arei:t}w:a’tit ‘”9<\/p>\n
the impugned iron ore mining is 1ocated_wi?_thiri the forest <\/p>\n
and the same is governed by the’~.p.rovis~ions, oi”,:t11ev…Foresti
\n(Conservation) Act, 1980 (for short__’_the:_F–C_ Act’)~–rec1uiring the<\/p>\n
prior approval of the CentralC2overn:mentijVun’d–er Section 2 of<\/p>\n
the FC Act\ufb02for  oifthe. forest land for non–forest
\nactivity, viz.  which had also been granted by
\nthe Central “Government; that pursuant to prior approval of<\/p>\n
 I{ar’n.atal_raA,.P’.orest Department, the petitionerhas entered<\/p>\n
 into  the fourth respondent-The Deputy<\/p>\n
i’v:’,gConservator  Forests, Beliary Division; that the petitioner<\/p>\n
_ .fafteri.,:obtainin”g the lease and also after having complied with<\/p>\n
‘*.’=..tiiej,’_. mandatory provisions, has been conducting mining<\/p>\n
 ‘  operations in its leased area and within the<\/p>\n
area demarcated<\/p>\n
gm<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
by the Department of Mines and Geology; that the peti’tio_’ne’1–f_
\nhas a subsisting lease as on date; that the violation  *
\nconditions of the lease agreement were’t>vc0.rnp.laiinied.-Toagainst it<\/p>\n
the petitioner and the same was recorded  the <\/p>\n
Lokayukta and that based on su<::_:h~.0_alleigatio'n,Aii<\/p>\n
respondent registered First Inforrfration Rieport\/E dated<\/p>\n
19.02.2009 for alleged forestiiloffenoesiii}<\/p>\n
4) In this   behalf of the<\/p>\n
petitioner that:\n<\/p>\n
(i} the __ -irinipugned”\u00abv:0i_’proceedings–FIR dated
\n 2009i A  ” “seizure order’ dated
\ng119.o2′;’2009Vereiileeie to be quashed, as the<\/p>\n
is i’or11yV___based upon the report of the
\n   which is yet to be accepted by<\/p>\n
 tl1e”‘e(}ovVern’ment;\n<\/p>\n
V . (ii)  the boltayukta report cannot be put against
\nV the petitioner, as the petitioner was not
\nit  jifggiveri any opportunity of being heard before<\/p>\n
th L k kt ;\n<\/p>\n
e o ayu a  ._<\/p>\n
(iii) assuming the respondents propose to <\/p>\n
action based on the Lokayukta report,__-the ‘i” <\/p>\n
second respondent ought to have given_:ian
\nopportunity to the petitioner toreggplain -i.t_s*_  V
\ncase against the \ufb01ndings iniith\u00e9.Lokay’u,kta. \u00ab. V’ <\/p>\n
report;\n<\/p>\n
(iv) assuming the respondentsri1*iaiie__got’power:<\/p>\n
to initiate action   A.:petitioner
\nunder section 62.4′:  ithie  Forest
\nAct,  ‘iA<:t?_l,\u00abiit11e same
\nought     exercised
\narbiitra:i'i1_i3i\/i,iibgillegailgif it  unreasonably<\/p>\n
againstiptldet  — i
\n5.1) Per contra, iear1i,ed\u00ab.:_iGoVernment Advocate submits
\nthat,the,_':pI}o1;ay1iktairepnrtv being a report submitted by a<\/p>\n
Statutory can be the basis for \ufb01ling an FIR and the<\/p>\n
 iciannoti  disregarded. The learned Government<\/p>\n
_i_if_Apd'Vocate brought to our notice that before preparing the<\/p>\n
ii._i_iSateiI'itejiiiiagery, the Lokayukta Team has conducted ground<\/p>\n
it iiigsurvieyiigiand prepared survey sketch of the boundaries and<\/p>\n
'i with other documents and other necessary input have<\/p>\n
7<\/span><\/p>\n
been given to the Karnataka State Remote <\/p>\n
Organisation for preparing Satellite imagery.  .<\/p>\n
Government Advocate, based on the instructi.ons the it <\/p>\n
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, thatl:’i:–h\u00e9i1.c_’<\/p>\n
Satellite imagery and the sketch p–repa.1l”edl ‘there:on{_’vonVV the<\/p>\n
basis of the GPS is one of the technicalvctools for “i\u00abde_nti_fication
\nof encroachment at macro. lilevel.  1I9I’o’v\u00bbreve_r, the actual
\nboundaries of the leased out.’a1’ea:”Wou_ld  deterrnined at the<\/p>\n
micro level by the  T . it
\n5.2} It ‘contended that the mere fact that the<\/p>\n
petitioner was “‘-not   Lokayukta cannot be a<\/p>\n
ground to\ufb01contend lthaitl no: legal action can be initiated by ‘<\/p>\n
\ufb01ling   persons who had committed illegality.<\/p>\n
 The  need not by itself be conclusive<\/p>\n
vl’7_evid.ence  initiating action by way of \ufb01ling FIR against the<\/p>\n
.1 .1l_\u00a7’eI’spns ‘iwholllhad committed illegality, but still could be a<\/p>\n
ii’-ll’_v~basi’s  setting the law into motion by filing FIR against<\/p>\n
hall”-._illeglallrnining in the forest area and to seize the illegally<\/p>\n
{, …… ._._,_N_?m\\:\n<\/p>\n
mined iron ore and tools, machineries and vehicles used for<\/p>\n
such illegal mining. Filing an FIR is only an initiatiorrof<\/p>\n
action against the petitioner and the respondent _<\/p>\n
investigate into the matter and therefore the pet\u00a3–tiron~er”‘is noted <\/p>\n
entitled to seek quashing of the FIR on   at<\/p>\n
that the respondent do not propc;se..__to irivgstigatevvlthe.xriatterl
\nor that the respondents have already-_inv_estigate_d’, but have
\nnot found any evidence againt-it_tIie Therefore, the<\/p>\n
prayer to quash the FIR is premature l K<\/p>\n
5.3)  The  “aG’oVeniment Advocate further
\ncontends thatneitherlthe’  application for issuance of
\nForest Tra\u00a71risi’t.Pass”‘(e’i?flf’I”, for short) nor issuance of the FTP<\/p>\n
nor Way Permits under Rules 146 and 149 of<\/p>\n
 the  by itself would not be a ground to<\/p>\n
vfpreiect the” Lo’l\u00a7ay’dl<ta report. The alleged in\ufb01rmity between<\/p>\n
4: lu\ufb01eldetngapvllsketch and the Satellite report also cannot be a<\/p>\n
 tojreject the Lokayukta report or to quash the FIR<\/p>\n
 ' -.__dated"ii9.02.2O09 and the seizure order dated 19.02.2009 as<\/p>\n
r  .\n<\/p>\n
the second respondenvauthority is still continuing<\/p>\n
investigation.\n<\/p>\n
5.4) The learned Government <\/p>\n
submits that the respondents are reaclfditoligivegn~ot–ic:e-.t0Vp:thVe_ <\/p>\n
petitioner before such \ufb01eld survey an’c1Ailinspecti.c.n” in <\/p>\n
presence of the petitioner and Controllger of:
\nBureau of Mines, Bangalore;V.\u00ab_ alo’ng:_ norninee, not
\nbelow the rank of the  Director
\nGeneral, Survey of”    that’ there
\ncannot be any  the petitioner to continue
\nthe mining  area and to return
\nthe seized; “niachin’eri_esl for ‘such purpose, but without<\/p>\n
plrejudicevilto   of the forest authorities taking action to<\/p>\n
 seize “a_n'{:l__\u00abco’n’f_iscate” the tools, Vehicles and machineries,<\/p>\n
vfgsubject  the \ufb01ndings of the joint inspection and further<\/p>\n
4: .invevstigationVVinto the matter to be made in the presence of<\/p>\n
dill.”V..theffpetitio’ner, Controller of Mines, Indian Bureau of Mines,<\/p>\n
i’l”\u00bb..__Bang’aIore, along with the nominee of the Director General,<\/p>\n
‘,\u00bb\u00a2Ir'”‘\ufb01\u00a7l@I  __<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
Survey of India, who is not below the rank of a <\/p>\n
Director, after giving notice to the petitioner.<\/p>\n
5.5) Learned Government Advocaterippfurther “‘si1’ornits:,e_*i<\/p>\n
that the seized articles would be’ r.eturried’ 2 to the petitioneri<\/p>\n
provided the petitioner gives an  to  the
\npossession of the  machinery as
\nand when required bythe respanden-tior”.h.qrthe’r:.investigation
\nor by the   as well as for
\nseizure and   might be initiated
\nby the  the provisions of the<\/p>\n
Forest Act, if necessary-, inifeitiirei.<\/p>\n
   view.._of the’above rival contentions, the following<\/p>\n
queisutiorzs, ‘wh.ic}1..”are” similar to those raised in Writ Petition<\/p>\n
  2QOh\u00a7’i.v_disposed of on 13.4.2009, arise for our<\/p>\n
.,i_cons’i.deration in this petition:<\/p>\n
 (Ii? Whether the report of the Lokayukta can<\/p>\n
be the basis for the impugned FIR dated<\/p>\n
‘ ?\\~.\n<\/p>\n
33<\/span><\/p>\n
19.02.2009 and the order of seizure dated”
\n19.02.2009? 0 ”<\/p>\n
(II) Whether it is proper for this  <\/p>\n
exercise the power of  review <\/p>\n
under Article 226 of the ‘2Coi1..st”itutin_r1–.o\u00a3 ”  <\/p>\n
India to quash the:_”‘First””..Ir1forn:etig.;1. <\/p>\n
Report dated 19.02.20029~?h’ <\/p>\n
(111) Whether the   vreeayoihdent is
\nempowered to seizev\ufb01 the”~.V’rrt\u00a7c–hinery,
\nequipmerit..VL:Vj’– iron. Lore vehicles
\nbelorr.gix12_gV t9–‘:V’_Vthe._V-pietitiorier. by an order
\nqateiae ..1}~9.0\u00e9f;V2009\u00a2;–r so.’ “herring committed
\nillegal en21i:iirrg\u00bb.vop_era;tion in the forest
\narea?’_ = V .2 V’  <\/p>\n
 7)  decidin,g____th.e above mentioned questions, in
\n Peti’tion._No.’3:8″12_ of 2009 disposed of on 13.4.2009, we
\n *  have ‘as
\n0  f’6—-.}) 0.-.;e… No.1
\nV A Whether the report of the
\n‘ ‘Lokayukta can be the basis for the<\/p>\n
impugned Fm dated 03.02.2009 and
\nthe order of seizure dated 03.2.2009?<\/p>\n
14<\/span><\/p>\n
conclude that at prima facie stage, no case was made<\/p>\n
out.\n<\/p>\n
6.5) Similarly, it is settled law that the electronic  <\/p>\n
evidence is admissible in evidence. It may also be ;not\u00ab  .. 5. \u00bb<\/p>\n
proper for this court to jump into the conclusion”thatf.<\/p>\n
the respondents are not entitled to place.relianceivupo;rt be<\/p>\n
the satellite imagery, as the electronic’eivtdencel <\/p>\n
admissible in evidence; but the samexhas to; be i’<\/p>\n
substantiated by the responden_ts*~in the trial_ <\/p>\n
the competent court and the petitioineris also “entitled
\nto rebut the same so thatthe rule of law would prevail.
\nTherefore, to contend that it.t.wouldi not_._be for the<\/p>\n
respondents to initiate alawful action based on the<\/p>\n
Lokayu}cta_  .,or’.,the,:satellite sketches enclosed
\ntherewith. against  acts alleged to have
\nbeen committed by the petitioner by illegal mining<\/p>\n
operationencroaehing into the forest area in violation<\/p>\n
‘   th–e:’co.nditions of thellease agreement entered by the<\/p>\n
 ipetitioneriiivith’ ~-the respondents-forest authorities,<\/p>\n
‘lacks,’legal_”_sanetity; because this is not a case where<\/p>\n
the”-\u00ab.respvondents propose to shut down an activity<\/p>\n
l\ufb01gwhich “is’1carried on by the petitioners lawfully, but<\/p>\n
2..\ufb02.uinjortunately, it is the case of the respondents, of<\/p>\n
be  course based on the report of the Lokayukta, that the<\/p>\n
  Petitioner has allegedly violated the maintenance of<\/p>\n
ecology and environment; and whereupon the<\/p>\n
E5<\/p>\n
observance of the laws enacted to protect the<\/p>\n
environment and ecology is sought to be ensured.<\/p>\n
6.6) When the Lolcayukta \ufb01nds fault against the<\/p>\n
executives for their failure to implement such laws to<\/p>\n
protect the environment and ecology, the petitioner<\/p>\n
projects the grievance against the executives for acting’ ..  \u00bb<\/p>\n
upon the Lolcayukta report. But, under  <\/p>\n
circumstances, in our consideredw’ npini49n,’th,e it<\/p>\n
executives should have a free hand.__to:_proiceed with <\/p>\n
investigation \ufb01trther into the matter ire do theirlviuty ”<\/p>\n
conferred by law and by people,”*~particuwlarlyAgiizh\u00e9nh” <\/p>\n
faced with money-power  man\ufb01powerii.<\/p>\n
Otherwise, the respect’_fo.r’%\u00ab.lau.fVA and” would be<\/p>\n
lost.\n<\/p>\n
6.According\u00b0to respondents, the petitioner<\/p>\n
has encroached into the forest area which is outside<\/p>\n
.. ..  _Athe..’:leasbed out area;’v—Learned Advocate General invited<\/p>\n
 attentionithat when the leased out area has been<\/p>\n
the satellite map, the encroachment<\/p>\n
of the forest ‘area stands clearly established; and that<\/p>\n
 the satellite imagery obtained from the Karnataka<\/p>\n
.  ._mE3’tate Remote Sensing Application Centre, which is a<\/p>\n
b    agency for the entire State with regard to GPS<\/p>\n
and remote sensing, would prima facie show that the<\/p>\n
it “petitioner had encroached upon the forest area,<\/p>\n
outside the leased out area which is an o\ufb01ence by<\/p>\n
16<\/span><\/p>\n
itself and the authorities are duty-bound to prevent
\nsuch illegal encroachment and mining operations apart
\nfrom seizing the machineries and to con\ufb01scate the_”-i.”’– ”<\/p>\n
same by appropriate proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
6. 8} Once there is prima evide_nce__to shout)’
\nthe petitioner had encroached upon the forest
\noperating its activity outside the limits of the leased ‘
\nout area, learned Advocate Geri-era.lg_Vcontends  the
\nrespondents have no option except’-to initiate’
\naction against the petitioner by seizeithe
\nminerals mined outside the’i1eaeeei7eer ..t.t5F1,t’Ch is a
\nforest produce, togetherA”ivi’th.:”& <\/p>\n
and vehicles used the Veorf1rnission_ offheojfence and<\/p>\n
also to _conl”:vsca_te.A  same in appropriate<\/p>\n
proceedings;-” A T 2<\/p>\n
8. Sim_i1ar1$5,  ‘the iseezond question, viz. whether it is
\ngivrop-e’r.fo’i’  Court to vlelsercise the power under Article 226<\/p>\n
of  India to quash the First Information<\/p>\n
it ‘;rVReport dated,.’_’19~.Q’.2009, we held as hereunder:<\/p>\n
” * —  “..7.,1_) Issue No.11”.-\n<\/p>\n
 Whether it is proper for this Court to<\/p>\n
it  .. .,V_e.;cercise the power under Article 226 of the
\ng. .. E.’<\/p>\n
17<\/span><\/p>\n
Constitution of India to quash the First <\/p>\n
Information Report dated 03. 02.2009?<\/p>\n
7.2) The power of judicial review unde.ryArtic;\u00a7e  i<\/p>\n
the Constitution of India is akin to the inherent\u00bb
\nconferred under Section 482 of the Codeof Criminal = ‘<\/p>\n
Procedure. It is a settled lawit thic-Steven”  <\/p>\n
inherent powers conferred on the4ttHigl2.VVCourt’  ‘very
\nwide, the very plenitude ‘of  requires yreat
\ncaution in its exercise aindgthe be very
\ncare\ufb01tl to see that its Zdecision ”  such
\ninherent power” ‘;;;b.ased–. ortysound.:p’rinctptes as held
\nby the Apex”  the. of; INDER MOHAN
\nGoswnmv _ ,_  STATE – or
\nvTTAnANciiAL_–r.Anoo:fiieRs reported in (2ao7)12
\nSCC’ 1, because -thetvltpuwers conferred on this
\nCourt has iito,t)ev.spariing_lytejeercised (i) to give e\ufb02ect to<\/p>\n
an order. under. Cc-de; (ii) to prevent abuse of<\/p>\n
.  proce\ufb01s of Court,’ and m(iii) to otherwise secure the ends<\/p>\n
 cfj’ustic’e, ‘butts any event not to encourage violations<\/p>\n
of the piroiiisionss of any statutes in force much any<\/p>\n
conditions’ tg\ufb02agreement thereunder which empowers<\/p>\n
i\ufb01the competent authority to take appropriate action<\/p>\n
ii.j.axgaiinst the law breakers and those who violate the<\/p>\n
0  conditions of agreement.\n<\/p>\n
7.3) In any event, such powers should not be<\/p>\n
 ~ i  exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution and therefore<\/p>\n
E8<\/p>\n
the Courts should refrain from giving a prima–facie
\ndecision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete <\/p>\n
and hazy, more so, when the evidence has not been <\/p>\n
collected and produced before the Court. ”<\/p>\n
9. On Issue No.III — Whether the ‘s”e-Corld\ufb02hrespoh\u00e9entdsxl3<\/p>\n
empowered to seize the machinery, eqixipineint, iron’~ore<\/p>\n
vehicies belonging to the petitioay:e*r,>  an-..yoj1jde’:fdated
\n19.2.2009, for having committed  ililegeiii.rninihgrroperation<\/p>\n
in the forest area, We have held as lr1ei*e’i.tr.1.der_:V._i <\/p>\n
“yc’3.”2″)”‘ – _  enacted The Forest
\n(Conservation) . V _ in’ order to prevent
\ndeforestation which cauisesgyyiiecological imbalance and
\nleadsto environmental deterioration. The deforestation<\/p>\n
 &_ cau._=;e’s widesprea’d\u00ab.c_on.cern. Section 2 of the FC Act
\nthe.jr’estriction on de-reservation of forest or
\n  for non–forest purposes and as per<\/p>\n
H the said  no State Government or authority
\n. V — shall” matte,” ‘except with the prior approval of the
\nu.””–._l:”C’entralz Government, any order directing (i) that the
\n forest shall be ceased to be reserved; (ii) that<\/p>\n
*  any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for
\n  any man forest purpose; (iii) that any forest land may<\/p>\n
 be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any<\/p>\n
19<\/span><\/p>\n
private person or to any authority, corporation, agency <\/p>\n
or any other organization not owned, managed_orl’~._”~.. <\/p>\n
controlled by State Government, and (iv) that any.jore.st:l’   is<\/p>\n
land may be cleared of trees which  ‘<\/p>\n
naturally.\n<\/p>\n
8. .3) After the FC Act came into force, no.,mi.ning.<\/p>\n
lease\/ licence can be ranted in’t-..he”–forest area-whtthout
\n9′  ..  g<\/p>\n
the prior approval of the__Central,..Governrnent, which_.is
\na condition precedent, be.causei_l_Sectio’n._ofthe FC Act
\nstarts with non–obstante’;   viz.,
\n“Notwithstanding   .oo.ntaine’d  in any
\nother law for;-..the?’titne”belng in a State…”
\nTherefore,   can be carried on in the<\/p>\n
forest i_area,., e;fc:eptV”\u00ab:vit.h,g “the prior approval of the
\nCentral “Govemrnent_.:_”~.which~,means, even the State
\nGovernmentg cannot carry._~7’on any such non–forest<\/p>\n
activig_fy”in the fa.\u00abe\u00a7t’\u00a2rel: without the prior approval of<\/p>\n
 ‘*–the”~-C{en–t’ral Governrnent. The fact that the mining<\/p>\n
 activity  to non–forest purpose is beyond doubt.<\/p>\n
‘ ‘  pTi’nerenewal ofa lease is really the grant of<\/p>\n
 [Va fresh lease as held by the Apex Court in DELHI
\n_  lyybetzpmemm AUTHORITY Vs. DURGA CHAND
\nA   [AIR 1973 SC 2609] and therefore such<\/p>\n
 prior approval of the Central Government in terms of<\/p>\n
” “Section 2 of the FC Act would be required when mining<\/p>\n
‘ \/st’
\n5 .\n<\/p>\n
20<\/span><\/p>\n
lease granted before the commencement of the said Act<\/p>\n
is renewed after its coming into force.<\/p>\n
8.5} As the impugned quarry is located
\nforest area and the mining lease was granted”;onligg”. ii”.
\nsubject to the approval of the Central Govem_men,t\ufb01anc\u00a3.:: .
\nagreement entered with’ the State’J\u00bb\u00e9o’vemrn_ent,
\nrespondentsforest authorities haiie   Ito.’ ”
\ninitiate action against the pers\u00abons  violate }th.eH
\nterms of the lease and condit:io:1.s of’ ~.t_he ~v’leas\u00a7e
\nagreement and the KFZ  i\u00e9zmpotoers’-A
\nrespondents authorities totseizie,  forfeit
\nthe forest produce; tools, igehiclesiV_an,d \u00e9nachineiies that<\/p>\n
are used for illegalremooal of:the’forestprofduce. Such<\/p>\n
an exercise of po;wer;’\u00abin ‘ou”r’-considered opinion, cannot<\/p>\n
be termed as arl)-itrary or u__n’1’easonable. ”<\/p>\n
 10.v_\u00bb~’~;.:Fit1i*ther,V.ithiS__C0urt in Writ Petition No.60023 of<\/p>\n
 ‘dispose;i”ot” 1.4.2009, while considering the question<\/p>\n
:7″g_that whenevei’ia\ufb01yigiconditions of the iease agreement entered<\/p>\n
ininto.vbetween\ufb027tne mining Iease holder and the Karnataka<\/p>\n
 Ail\ufb01epartiment are alleged to have been violated, the<\/p>\n
 ii.’:j.–3.1._1__t’I'”1.”<)riV'1;ies of the Karnataka Forest Department are<\/p>\n
,, ..,__<\/p>\n
22<\/span><\/p>\n
the Central Government, which is a condition<\/p>\n
precedent, because Section 2 of the Forest <\/p>\n
(Conservation) Act starts with non–obstante clause    C V
\n“Notwithstanding anything contained in   C<\/p>\n
other law for the time being in force in <\/p>\n
Therefore, no non–forest activity can be cameo on  <\/p>\n
the forest area, except with the prior.approivaliiQfA.the _ ” <\/p>\n
Central Government, which rneans, even the <\/p>\n
Government cannot carry on  such’ non=fores’t
\nactivity in the forest area’ withoutlltfixepriorapproval
\nthe Central Government.” faiet}   mining
\nactivity amounts A . _ to noAn..–fo.re.st ‘  V  — ‘beyond<\/p>\n
doubt.\n<\/p>\n
if. 7) _The’renewal la-l.\u20aca.se is really the grant of
\na freshvxilease Vas:Apex Court in DELHI
\nDEvELoPi&L21}f2″,. Aurtroiaiiry Vs. DURGA CHAND
\n  V.’S’C $509, and therefore such prior<\/p>\n
. C  -a_pproVva–l”of the CentralGovemment in terms of Section<\/p>\n
 ofv,the__\u00ab’Forest. (Conservation) Act,1980 would be<\/p>\n
“reg”L.\u00a2.iredV ‘whe’n,.V”Vmining_ lease granted before the<\/p>\n
commencement of the said Act is renewed after its<\/p>\n
‘ ncoming into force.\n<\/p>\n
*   7. 8) The impugned quarry is admittedly located<\/p>\n
C  the forest area. Therefore, the mining lease granted<\/p>\n
if “to the petitioner in such forest area is subject to the<\/p>\n
conditions imposed by the Central Qovemment and<\/p>\n
\/’\/VJ  .\n<\/p>\n
aw….w-\u00ab=-\n<\/p>\n
25<\/span><\/p>\n
the fourth respondent has jurisdiction to initiate action in<\/p>\n
that regard.\n<\/p>\n
1 1) It is also not in dispute that the decisio_ris~–..renidered   0 <\/p>\n
in Writ Petition No.60o23 of 2009 disposed ;e’i’__erd1:.4e.,2soi09_i’]<\/p>\n
and Writ Petition No.3812 of 2009 .disposed– of on”V–i.1-f3V’\u00a74i}2G;O.9i A<\/p>\n
squarely apply to the facts of the pr\u00e9sei1t_ casei. Foilovizing the
\nsaid decisions and for the reasons’_:state\u00e9…._’Eherein, we pass the<\/p>\n
following:   H<\/p>\n
(i)  the sketches<\/p>\n
attached  the the basis for the<\/p>\n
5 respondents .*to.”-prosecute the FIR dated<\/p>\n
g 5!531?}-,.02vi.2O0\u00a7and the Seizure order dated
\n0 ‘ e  gie9,,’o2g;2bo9;\n<\/p>\n
(ii!  to quash the First Information
\nV  Report. dated 19.02.2009 is rejected, giving
\n he  liberty to the respondents to proceed in<\/p>\n
 Gaccordance with law, subject to the orders<\/p>\n
hereunder;\n<\/p>\n
“*”‘,i\u00a7\ufb02%<\/p>\n
(111)<\/span><\/p>\n
26<\/span><\/p>\n
Deputy Conservator of Forests, Bellary<\/p>\n
Division, Bellary~fourth Respondent, shal1~_”*ii.
\ninspect and survey the impugned  V’ ‘
\nleased out to the petitioner, in the pre.s.en’c.eV <\/p>\n
of the petitioner, the Controller’ of ‘~\u00abMines’,’i.
\nIndian Bureau of Mines,   _
\nwith the nominee not belovv thie=-ra11k  <\/p>\n
Deputy Director by theiiili\ufb01irectorlGeneral,lf,<\/p>\n
Survey of India;” ,_  \ufb01apepropriateii
\ndecision as to thealleged.jer:1croaChriient by
\nthe petitioner with “refere’1ice_ to I  survey<\/p>\n
records  .,C5’th\u00e9.rv relevant”””’ material<\/p>\n
av’aila–b1:\u00e9:,  ‘do’ciirnents”‘produced in this
\nregard. Ifencroachrnent of forest land<\/p>\n
is found., the “respondents are at liberty to<\/p>\n
,assess”the’damages caused on account of<\/p>\n
 illegal’ ‘mining outside the leased out<\/p>\n
 A.  tools, vehicles<\/p>\n
 .. ymviningarea and recover the same from the<\/p>\n
‘ ,pe’titioner’;’ <\/p>\n
  respondents are directed to return the<\/p>\n
and machinery to the<\/p>\n
 petitioner on the condition that the same<\/p>\n
shall be produced before the respondents\/<\/p>\n
jurisdictional Magistrate as and when<\/p>\n
(V)<\/p>\n
27<\/span><\/p>\n
required by law, subject to the \ufb01nding in<\/p>\n
the inspection to be conducted by the–g””i”
\nfourth respondent in the presence of  it ‘
\npetitioner and Controller of Mines,
\nBureau of Mines, Bangaloreryalong w-tith~:\n<\/p>\n
nominee not below the    _ ”\n<\/p>\n
Director by the Director General, iS’urve.y  <\/p>\n
India, referred to above;  l<\/p>\n
The ore which iis\ufb02’alre_ad;_y ._by the
\nauthorities vvhich_i_s:i’ alleged to  been
\nmined ojatsidje   shall be
\nin the  thefore-stiauthorities and
\nthe   at.’ liberty to take
\napipropriawpidecisioriiri the matter subject<\/p>\n
to   the inspection and<\/p>\n
.\u00ab}-\u00abassessment. of the damages and to recover<\/p>\n
  thzefsariievfrom the petitioner;\n<\/p>\n
 the \ufb01nding arrived at by the<\/p>\n
fourth \u00abi”respondent–Deputy Conservator of<\/p>\n
Forests, Beliary Division, and the<\/p>\n
ii””~{Contro}ler of Mines, Indian Bureau of<\/p>\n
it “Mines, Bangalore; petitioner shall rectify<\/p>\n
the violation by removing the overburden<\/p>\n
waste whatsoever within two weeks from<\/p>\n
28<\/span>
\nthe date of such order passed by the fourth <\/p>\n
respondent and the Controller of Mines, <\/p>\n
Indian Bureau of Mines, Bangalore;\n<\/p>\n
vii) The respondents are directediiito”perInit;’t.]fie’–_V
\npetitioner to undertake  Inining A. V’
\noperation in the leased “ant area   <\/p>\n
not disputed by the forest’=aiut1j1oritiesVV;:i ‘ I<\/p>\n
12) Writ petition is according1y.’_idisposed_iof, No oosts.<\/p>\n
Sd\/3
\nChiet Justice<\/p>\n
 …..\n<\/p>\n
Fudge<\/p>\n
* e\u00abiiaiI:-indgxr\u00bb-\u00abwpypss \/” No
\n\u00b0 \u00e9 . or ‘ ijweb’  5 “”Sr”3’ElS \/N0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court M\/S.Sri. Shanthipriya Minerals … vs State Of Karnataka on 25 June, 2009 Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & V.G.Sabhahit At t_ Btanggaiore — 560 001 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 25m DAY or JUNE 2oo9_’t: T. PRESEET THE I-ION’BLE MR. P.D. DINAKARAN; CHIEF J’\u00a3fVS:”I’.I_\u00a2VI’.-27* AND _ THE HON’BLE MR.JUsTIcE:V.G. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-99636","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S.Sri. Shanthipriya Minerals ... vs State Of Karnataka on 25 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sri-shanthipriya-minerals-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-25-june-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S.Sri. Shanthipriya Minerals ... vs State Of Karnataka on 25 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sri-shanthipriya-minerals-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-25-june-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-06-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-15T17:05:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sri-shanthipriya-minerals-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-25-june-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sri-shanthipriya-minerals-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-25-june-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S.Sri. Shanthipriya Minerals … vs State Of Karnataka on 25 June, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-15T17:05:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sri-shanthipriya-minerals-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-25-june-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3525,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sri-shanthipriya-minerals-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-25-june-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sri-shanthipriya-minerals-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-25-june-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sri-shanthipriya-minerals-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-25-june-2009\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S.Sri. Shanthipriya Minerals ... vs State Of Karnataka on 25 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-15T17:05:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sri-shanthipriya-minerals-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-25-june-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sri-shanthipriya-minerals-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-25-june-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sri-shanthipriya-minerals-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-25-june-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S.Sri. Shanthipriya Minerals … vs State Of Karnataka on 25 June, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S.Sri. Shanthipriya Minerals ... vs State Of Karnataka on 25 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sri-shanthipriya-minerals-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-25-june-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S.Sri. Shanthipriya Minerals ... vs State Of Karnataka on 25 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sri-shanthipriya-minerals-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-25-june-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-06-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-15T17:05:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sri-shanthipriya-minerals-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-25-june-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sri-shanthipriya-minerals-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-25-june-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S.Sri. Shanthipriya Minerals … vs State Of Karnataka on 25 June, 2009","datePublished":"2009-06-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-15T17:05:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sri-shanthipriya-minerals-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-25-june-2009"},"wordCount":3525,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sri-shanthipriya-minerals-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-25-june-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sri-shanthipriya-minerals-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-25-june-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sri-shanthipriya-minerals-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-25-june-2009","name":"M\/S.Sri. Shanthipriya Minerals ... vs State Of Karnataka on 25 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-06-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-15T17:05:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sri-shanthipriya-minerals-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-25-june-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sri-shanthipriya-minerals-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-25-june-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sri-shanthipriya-minerals-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-25-june-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S.Sri. Shanthipriya Minerals … vs State Of Karnataka on 25 June, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/99636","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=99636"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/99636\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=99636"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=99636"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=99636"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}