1
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

       DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012

                     PRESENT

          THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE JAWAD RAHIM

                        AND

        THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO

         WRIT PETITION NO.51611/2012 (GM-MMS)

BETWEEN:

M/S. RACHANA GRANITES
A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN
SY.NO.371, NH 4
BELLUR NARASAPURA HOBLI
KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT 563 101
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
MR.M.NARAYANASWAMY.
                                    ...PETITIONER

            [BY:SRI B.C.ANIKETH, ADVOCATE]

AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
       DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
       KANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD
       BANGALORE 560 001.
       REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

2.     THE KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
       PARISARA BHAVAN 1ST TO 5TH FLOOR
                          2
     NO.49, CHURCH STREET
     BANGALORE 560 001
     REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

3.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
     KOLAR DISTRICT
     KOLAR 563 101.

4.   THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
     BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY
     K.R.CIRCLE
     BANGALORE 560 001.

5.   THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER/
     ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
     BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY
     KOLAR DIVISION
     KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT 563 101.

6.   THE SECRETARY
     BELLUR VILLAGE PANCHAYAT
     KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT 563101
                                  ...RESPONDENTS

         [BY:SRI R.G.KOLLE, AGA, FOR R1 & R3;
             SRI D.NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
             SRI N.K.GUPTA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5]

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
AND  OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CLOSURE NOTICE DATED 28.8.12 ISSUED BY
R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
                                   3
     This petition coming on for orders               this    day,
Dr.JAWAD RAHIM J., made the following

                            ORDER

The petitioner, M/s Rachana Granites is a proprietary concern of one M.Narayanaswamy, engaged in running a stone crushing unit under license issued by the competent authority arrayed in this writ petition as respondent no.3.

2. It is not in dispute the petitioner is a licensee and the licens is valid to run the stone crushing unit. In this writ action he has sought a writ of certiorari to quash the closure notice bearing reference no.PCB/MIN/SC/CO/UIN/2002002587/2012-13/545 dated 28.8.2012 vide Annexure-A issued under Section 31(A) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution Act, 1981, by the 2nd respondent . He also seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the 3rd respondent (competent authority under the Act) to consider its application filed on 24.11.2012 vide Annexure-C to permit the petitioner to operate his crushing unit pending consideration of the application, and consequential reliefs. 4

3. This writ petition and several other petitions seeking similar relief are listed for consideration and we have heard learned counsel, Sri B.C.Aniketh for the petitioner, Sri R.G.Kolle, AGA, who accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 3 and Sri D.Nagaraj, learned advocate who accepts for respondent no.2. Notice to respondents 5 and 6 is dispensed with as no relief is sought against them.

4. The contextual facts manifesting from the averments in the writ petition and the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents leaves no scope for doubt that this writ action is similar to the writ action of similarly placed owners of crushing units in which questions raised in this writ petition were considered in detail in W.P.41069/12 disposed of by the Division Bench of this court on 21.11.2012 quashing the closure notice issued by the Karnataka Pollution Control Board arrayed as respondent no.2 in that writ petition and issuing a writ of mandamus to permit the petitioner therein to continue stone crushing activity till its application for re-locating the 5 unit to a safer zone was disposed of by the competent authority, i.e. Deputy Commissioner (respondent no.3 arrayed in that writ petition).

5. We are satisfied the orders impugned in that writ petition, grounds against it and the relief sought are the same as in this writ action. Therefore, we cannot summon ourselves to take a different view but to follow the decision of the Division Bench in W.P.41069/12 dated 21.11.2012 in which, while rendition of the judgment, all facts and circumstances have been taken into consideration. However, to avoid any doubt, we need to extract the core of the judgment which is as follows:

'In the present case, by Gazette Notification dated 14.8.2012 safer zones in Haveri had been duly notified to the public.

Section 3(3) of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 (for short, 'the Act') permits a period of three months to existing stone crusher units to trans-locate themselves to safer zones. In this regard an application has to be filed with the Licensing Authority within a reasonable time. Unfortunately, the Act does not prescribe this period. In the present case, the Petitioner applied to the Licensing Authority on 24.9.2012. It is not disputed that consequent upon the petitioner's 6 application, the Licensing Authority till date has neither granted or refused the license under the provisions of the said Act. Since Section 3(4) of the Act prescribes an outer limit of six months for shifting from the date of grant, it could be inferred that the application has to be made within three months of the requisite Gazetting of the safer zones.

2. In these circumstances, the petition is allowed by directing the respondents to permit the operation of the petitioner at the present site upt 23.12.2012 or till such time the application is considered and disposed of, by the Licensing Authority.

3. Learned counsel for the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (for short 'the Board) submits that the petitioner did not apply for the consent of the Board on the expiry of the previous consent on 30.6.2012. In normal circumstances, the contention would be well founded since no one is permitted to operate without current permission or consent.

4. In the circumstances of the present case, however, a piquant situation has arisen, inasmuch as the Pollution Control Boardcannot grant permission to the petitioner to operate in its present site, since it must statutorily relocate to a safer zone as identified by the State. Needless to add that if and when the petitioner is granted a license to relocate to a safer zone, conditions under Section 6(9) of the Act will have to e complied with as also the permission would have to be obtained from the Board.

5. With these observations, the petition is allowed and Annexur-H dated 5.9.2012 is quashed.'

6. Under the circumstances, Annexure-A dated 28.8.2012 impugned in this writ petition issued by the 2nd respondent is quashed. In terms of the order extracted above, this petition is also allowed directing the respondents to permit operation of the stone crushing unit of the petitioner at the present site till such time its application is considered and disposed of by the licensing authority, or for a period of four weeks from now, as ordered in that writ petition. Rule issued and made absolute. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

SD/-

JUDGE Sd/-

JUDGE MN/vgh*