1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF

DHARWAD BENCH

Dated this the 25 th Day of September, 2014

Before

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH

Writ Petition No.106375/2014 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN

V.B.TOLMATTI S/O. BEERAPPA, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. TEGGI VILLAGE, TQ: BILGI, DIST: ..... PETITIONER

(BY M/S GOULAY ASSOCIATES ; SRI SUNIL S. DESAI, ADV.)

AND

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M S BUILDING, BANGALORE

2. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY, NO. 49, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY, 2

BAGALKOT

4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAGALKOT DIVISION, BAGALKOT

5. THE KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PARISARA BHAVAN, NO. 49, 4TH & 5TH FLOOR, CHURCH STREET, BANGALORE

6. THE KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, BY ITS ENVIRONMENT OFFICER, PLOT NO. 33E, SECTOR NO. 32, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT

7. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF MINES & GEOLOGY, BAGALKOT, DIST: BAGALKOT

8. THE TAHSILDAR, TQ: BILGI, DIST: BAGALKOT

9. RAMANNA TUMBERMATTI, R/O. TEGGI, TQ: BILGI, DIST: BAGALKOT

10. B N NAGANGOUDER, AGE: MAJOR, R/O. H NO. 1233A, GANDHINAGAR, AT & POST: BILGI, TQ: BILGI, DIST: BAGALKOT 3

11. MAHADEVAPPA YANGI, R/O. TEGGI VILLAGE, TQ: BILGI, DIST: BAGALKOT ..... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT K. VIDYAVATHI, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-4, R-7 AND R-8 NOTICE TO R-5, R-6, R-9, R-10, R-11 IS DISPENSED WITH)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF PRAYING TO QUASH THE LICENCE NO.017 & 027 DATED 07.10.2013 AS PER ANNEXURE-M AND ANNEXURE-N DATED 07.10.2013 BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF MINES & GEOLOGY, BAGALKOT-RESPONDENT NO.3 ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENT NO.10 AS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND VOID AND IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF 'THE KARNATAKA REGULATION OF STONE CRUSHERS ACT, 2011 (KARNATAKA ACT NO.8 OF 2012)' AND ALSO 'THE KARNATAKA REGULATION OF STONE CRUSHERS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2013' AS PER ANNEXURE-Q, AND ALSO THE PROVISIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1986 AND AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1981 AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Learned Addl. Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondents No.1 to 4, 7 and 8. 4

2. Notice to other respondents is dispensed with.

3. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Government Advocate.

4. The office has raised an objection regarding maintainability. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he is the owner of land bearing Sy.Nos.251 measuring 2 acre 2 guntas situated at Teggi village,

Bilagi Taluk Teggi village and there is said to be quarrying and stone crushing in the land bearing

Sy.No.251 and 251/2E and transportation is also done from land bearing R.S.Nos.250/7 and 250/4. Referring to the proceedings of the Karnataka Regulation of

Stone Crushers Act 2011, which is amended during

2013, he contends that before issuing license for quarrying and crushing, the respondent-authorities ought to have taken care of the damage being caused and also to avoid environmental pollution and loss of property in stead, it simply proceeded to issue license. 5

As the property of the petitioner is closed to the property of the respondents No.9 to 10, damage is caused to the crop grown in his land, as such, he seeks to quash the license issued by the Deputy Director of

Mines and to direct the respondent-authorities to initiate proper enquiry and also to issue a direction to respondents to pay the damages/loss caused the loss to the tune of Rs.30 lakhs to the crop grown in

Sy.Nos.251 measuring 2 acres 2 guntas.

5. The submission of the Addl. Government

Advocate is that at the outset, the writ petition itself is not maintainable in as much as no proper person is made as party and also there is no such representation to the concerned authority as to any damage being caused and also there is no enquiry report as to stopping of the quarrying and stone crushing activity.

The petition is filed in the form of public interest litigation but in an individual capacity and does not have the character of Public Interest Litigation. 6

6. The petitioner can very well approach respondents No.9 to 11 expressing his grievance to stop nuisance being caused on his properties and crop grown or else can file a suit for damages. At the most, if any such genuine grievance is there, the petitioner can very well give a representation to the concerned authority and concerned authority would look into the matter.

7. With the above observations, the petition is disposed of.

Learned Addl. Government Advocate is granted four weeks’ time to file memo of appearance.

Sd/- Judge Naa