-: 1 :-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF , BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 07 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2013 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR.K.SREEDHAR RAO, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA W.P.Nos.508/2013, & 712-732/2013 (GM-MM-S)

BETWEEN :

1.SRI PRASANNA SHETTY.S., PROPRIETOR, AGE: 42 YEARS, NO.176, MOOKAMBIKA CRUSHERS, SHIVAPUR POST, TALUK, DISTRICT-567 101.

2.MOOKAMBIKA CRUSHERS, S NO.106/1, SHIVAPUR POST, KARKALA TALUK, -567 101, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI.PRASANNA SHETTY.S. AGED 45 YEARS

3.SUDHAKAR SHETTY, S/O LATE SHEENA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, SAISHA STONE CRUSHER, BAIRAMPALLI, UDUPI-567 101.

4.M.RATHNAVATHI SHEDTHI, W/O LATE N.RAVIRAJ SHETTY, AGED 45 YEARS, PROPRIETRIX, BHAGIRATHI HOYNALI POST & VILLAGE, HARDALLI MANDALLI, KUNDAPURA TALUK,

-: 2 :-

UDUPI DISTRICT-567 101.

5.M.MAHESH HEGDE, PROPRIETOR, AGED 42 YEARS, SIDDI SUBRAMANYA STONE INDUSTRIES, P.O.PALLI, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-567 101.

6.KAMAL KISHORE HEGDE, S/O M.S.HEGDE, AGED 47 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, SAPTHAMI STONE CRUSHERS, P O MOLAHALLI KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-567 101.

7.SMT SWARNALATHA J SHETTY PROPRIETRIX, AGED 41 YEARS, GURU LAXMI STONE CRUSHER SRI SAI NAGAR, KINARA BEACH ROAD KOTESHWARA, KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-567 101.

8.SRI B SURESH SHETTY PROPRIETOR, AGED 41 YEARS VANASHREE STONE CRUSHER SHIRIYARA P O., UDUPI TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-567 101

9.T SURESH SHETTY PROPRIETOR, AGED 42 YEARS SRI LAXMI STONE CRUSHER KARJE POST, HALUVALLI VILLAGE UDUPI DISTRICT-567 101

10.SHARATH KUMAR SHETTY PROPRIETOR, AGED 42 YEARS SHRI BHUVANESHWARA STONE CRUSHER YEDTHADY VILLAGE

-: 3 :-

UDUPI DISTRICT-567 101

11.GANESH SHETTY PROPRIETOR, AGED 43 YEARS ANUGRAHA STONE CRUSHER SANTHOOR POST & VILLAGE UDUPI DISTRICT-567 101

12.Y SANKAYYA SHETTY PROPRIETOR, AGED 45 YEARS MAHAGANAPATHI STONE CRUSHER YEDLHADY VILLAGE & POST UDUPI DISTRICT-567 101

13.SRI SURESH SHETTY PROPRIETOR, AGED 42 YEARS SHREE DEVI STONE CRUSHER SANTHOOR POST & VILLAGE UDUPI DISTRICT-567 101

14.SRI.SUJAYA SHETTY PROPRIETOR, AGED 42 YEARS, VISHNUMOORTHY CRUSHER, KADATHALA, SIRIBAIL KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DIST.-567 101

15.M.R.SHENOY PROPRIETOR, AGED 45 YEARS AVINASH ENTERPRISES KALYA VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DIST.-567 101

16.M.G.HUSSAIN PROPRIETOR, AGED 47 YEARS MUNNA STONE CRUSHER SANTHOOR POST & VILLAGE UDUPI DIST.-567 101

-: 4 :-

17.ASHOK HEGDE PROPRIETOR, AGED 42 YEARS SRI.DURGA CRUSHER ASHIRVAD, KAJANE SHIVAPURA POST & VILLAGE KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DIST.-567 101

18.GIRIJA STONE CRUSHING INDUSTRY AGED 47 YEARS , NEELAKANTHA HUDAR TAGGARSE VILLAGE, BYNDOOR KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DIST.-567 101 REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI.NEELAKANDA HUDAR

19.SURESH.B.SHETTY PROPRIETOR, AGED 42 YEARS ANANTHA PADMANABHA STONE CRUSHER S.NO.305, BUKKIGUDDE PERDOOR, UDUPI TALUK UDUPI DIST.-567 101

20.SUBHASHCHANDRA SHETTY PROPRIETOR, AGED 43 YEARS RENUKAMBA STONE CRUSHER BAGWADI, NOOJADY POST & VILLAGE KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DIST.-567 101

21.B SATHISH KINI PROPRIETOR, AGED 42 YEARS S K INDUSTRIES, P O BELVE KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DIST.-567 101

22.NITHYANANDA SHETTY PROPRIETOR, AGED 42 YEARS

-: 5 :-

SRI DURGA CRUSHER SY NO. 382, 383, 385 SANTHOOR POST & VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK UDUPI DIST.-567 101 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI: S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY, ADV.)

AND:

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

2.THE KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD PARISARA BHAVAN 4 TH AND 5 TH FLOOR, NO.49, CHURCH STREET BANGALORE-560 001 BY ITS CHAIRMAN

3.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI-567 101

4.THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY O & M, UDUPI DISTRICT UDUPI-567 101 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: R.G.KOLLE, AGA FOR R1 & R3, SRI.D.NAGARAJ, ADV. FOR R2, SRI.N.K.GUPTA, ADV. FOR R4)

***** THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,

-: 6 :-

PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER ALL DATED 30.8.12 AND 28.8.12 PASSED BY R2 VIDE ANNXS-C TO C21 RESPECTIVELY.

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

NAGARATHNA J.,

Sri R.G.Kolle, learned AGA accepts notice on behalf

of Respondent Nos.1 and 3. Sri D.Nagaraj, learned

Advocate accepts notice for Respondent No.2 and Sri

N.Krishnananda Gupta, learned Advocate accepts notice

for Respondent No.4.

2. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have

assailed the orders dated 30/08/2012 and 28.08.2012

respectively, passed by respondent No.2 [Annexures “C to

C21”].

-: 7 :-

3. We have heard the learned counsel on both sides.

They state in unison that this writ petition could be disposed of in terms of the orders dated 21/11/2012 passed in W.P.No.41069/2012 and W.P.Nos.41515-

528/2012. The submission of the learned counsel is placed on record. The order dated 21/11/2012 reads as under:-

“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 Stones 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

-: 8 :- 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 up to 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 30.06.2012. In normal circumstances, the contention would be well founded since no one is permitted to operate without a current permission or consent.

-: 9 :-

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 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.”

4. In the circumstances, the respondent – authorities are directed to consider the petitioners’ applications

Annexures “D to D21” in accordance with law, as the safer zone for Udupi District is notified on 12/10/2012. The petitioners are permitted to continue the stone crushing units in the present location till the disposal of their applications. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated

-: 10 :-

30/08/2012 and 28.08.2012 (Annexures “C to C21”) respectively are quashed. Writ petitions are allowed in the aforesaid terms.

Sd/- ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/- JUDGE

*mvs Index: Y/N