Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
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 NOS.51741-51754/2012 (GM-MMS)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S.G.P.DATYA STONE CRUSHER
KALLEHOL VILLAGE
TQ:DIST:BELGAUM 590 001.
BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI G.P.DATYE
2. M/S.MALLIKARJUN STONE CRUSHER
SATTIGERI VILLAGE
TQ:SAUNDATTI
DIST:BELGAUM 590 001.
BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI P.M.PATIL
3. M/S.SHREE RENUKA STONE CRUSHER
KURUBAGATTI ROAD
SATTIGERI VILLAGE
TQ:SAUNDATTI DIST:BELGAUM 590 001.
BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI S.S.PATIL
4. M/S.PARVATHI STONE CRUSHER
2
SATTIGERI VILLAGE
TQ:SAUNDATTI DIST:BELGAUM 590 001.
BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI K.K.BUDI
5. M/S.SHREE SANGAMESHWARA STONE CRUSHER
SATTIGERI VILLAGE
TQ:SAUNDATTI DIST:BELGAUM 590 001.
BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI S.M.HADIMANI 590 001.
6. M/S.BASAVESHWARA STONE CRUSHER
SATTIGERI VILLAGE
TQ:SAUNDATTI DIST:BELGAUM 590 001.
BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI HARALI
7. M/S.BASAVESHWARA STONE CRUSHER
SATTIGERI VILLAGE
TQ:SAUNDATTI DIST:BELGAUM 590 001.
BY ITS PARTNER
SRI A.B.ANGADI
8. M/S.SHRI VEERABHADRESHWARA INDUSTRIES
SATTIGERI VILLAGE
TQ:SAUNDATTI, DIST:BELGAUM 590 001.
BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI BASAVANNEPPA N. NAVALGUND
9. M/S.SRI SIDDESHWAR GRAMABHIVURUDDI SANGH
(STONE CRUSHER) SATTIGERI VILLAGE
TQ:SAUNDATTI DIST:BELGAUM 590 001.
BY ITS CHAIRMAN
SRI S.M.DYAMANAGOUDAR.
3
10. M/S.HOLEBASAWESHWARA STONE CRUSHER
ITNAL VILLAGE
TQ:SAUNDATTI, DIST:BELGAUM 590 001.
BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI M.P.SINGARGOPPA
11. M/S.SHREE LAXMI STONE CRUSHER
SATTIGERI VILLAGE
TQ:SAUNDATTI DIST:BELGAUM 590 001.
BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI Y.I.PANCHAGAVI
12. M/S.ASHWINI STONE CRUSHER
SATTIGERI VILLAGE
TQ:SAUNDATTI, DIST:BELGAUM 590 001.
BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI M.M.ATTAR
13. M/S.MAHALAXMI ENTERPRISES (STONE CRUSHER)
MANGANOOR VILLAGE
TQ:CHIKKODI, DIST:BELGAUM 590 001.
BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI RAJENDRA M. PATIL
14. M/S.SAGAR STONE CRUSHER
NILAJI VILLAGE, KUDACHI POST
TQ:RAIBAG, DIST:BELGAUM 590 001.
BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI SAHEBLAL GUDUSAB RAHILE.
...PETITIONERS
[BY:SRI HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE]
4
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
NO.49, CHURCH STREET
BANGALORE 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BELGAUM DISTRICT
BELGAUM 590 001.
4. MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT
BANASHANKARI KRUPA, PLOT NO.68
SANGAMESHWARA NAGAR, APMC ROAD
BELGAUM 590 001.
5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY
O & M DIVISION, GANDHINAGAR
DIST:BELGAUM 590 001.
6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY
O & M DIVISION, CHIKKODI
DIST:BELGAUM 590 001.
7. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
5
HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY
O & M DIVISION, RAIBAG
BELGAUM DISTRICT - 590 001.
8. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY
O & M DIVISION, BAILHONGAL
DIST:BELGAUM 590 001.
...RESPONDENTS
[BY:SRI R.G.KOLLE, AGA, FOR R1 & R3;
SRI GURURAJ JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI N.K.GUPTA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R8]
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 5.9.12, 28.8.12, 3.9.12,
28.8.12, 3.9.12, 28.8.12, 28.8.12, 3.9.12, 28.8.12, 28.8.12,
3.9.12, 28.8.12, 10.9.12, 10.9.12 PASSED BY THE R2
PRODUCED AS ANNEXURES C TO C13 RESPECTIVELY AND
ETC.
These petitions coming on for orders this day,
Dr.JAWAD RAHIM J., made the following
ORDER
The petitioners are proprietary concerns engaged in running a stone crushing units under licenses issued by the competent authority arrayed in these writ petitions as respondent no.3.
6
2. It is not in dispute the petitioners are a licensees and the licenses are valid to run the stone crushing units. In this writ action they have sought a writ of certiorari to quash the closure notices bearing the following reference numbers:
a) PCB/MIN/SC/CO/UIN/2012-13/7287,
b) PCB/MIN/SC/CO/UIN/2012-13/6813,
c) PCB/MIN/SC/CO/UIN/2012-13/7035,
d) PCB/MIN/SC/CO/UIN/2012-13/6833,
e) PCB/MIN/SC/CO/UIN/2012-13/7020,
f) PCB/MIN/SC/CO/UIN/2012-13/6789-6793,
g) PCB/MIN/SC/CO/UIN/2012-13/6828,
h) PCB/MIN/SC/CO/UIN/2012-13/7115,
i) PCB/MIN/SC/CO/UIN/2012-13/6896,
j) PCB/MIN/SC/CO/UIN/2012-13/6740,
k) PCB/MIN/SC/CO/UIN/2012-13/7060,
l) PCB/MIN/SC/CO/UIN/2012-13/76784-6788,
m) PCB/MIN/SC/CO/UIN/2012-13/280 and
n) PCB/MIN/SC/CO/UIN/2012-13/522 of different dates vide Annexures-C to C13 respectively 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 the applications filed on different dates vide Annexures-D to 7 D13 to permit them to operate their crushing units pending consideration of the applications, and consequential reliefs.
3. These writ petitions and several other petitions seeking similar relief are listed for consideration and we have heard learned counsel, Sri Hanumanthreddy Sahukar for the petitioner, Sri R.G.Kolle, AGA, who accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 3 and Sri Gururaj Joshi, 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 petitions and the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners 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 8 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 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 9 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 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 upto 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 10 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 Board cannot 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 be complied with as also the permission would have to be obtained from the Board.
5. With these observations, the petition is allowed and Annexure-H dated 5.9.2012 is quashed.'
6. Under the circumstances, Annexure-C to C13 (of different dates) impugned in these writ petitions issued by the 2nd respondent are quashed. In terms of the order extracted above, these petitions are also allowed directing 11 the respondents to permit operation of the stone crushing units of the petitioners at the present site till such time their applications 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*