IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2013 : PRESENT : THE HON’BLE MR. D.H.WAGHELA , CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA WRIT PETITION No.66258 / 2012 (GM-MM-S)

BETWEEN

MALLAPPA P. KADADI AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. KALLOLI VILLAGE, TQ: , DIST: – 591 224.

... PETITIONER

( BY SRI SANTHOSH S NAGARALE, ADV. )

AND

1. THE STATE R/BY THE SECRETARY, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001.

2. THE SAND SUPERVISION COMMITTEE HEADED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER COURT COMPOUND, BELGAUM – 591 210.

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, PORT AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT, DIVISION, DIST: BELGAUM – 591 210.

4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELGAUM – 591 210.

2

5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BELGAUM – 591 210.

6. THE TAHASILDAR TQ: GOKAK - 591 224.

7. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF PWD, BELGAUM CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM – 591 210.

8. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER BAILHONGAL, BELGAUM – 591 210.

9. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER BELGAUM, R.T.O. CIRCLE, BELGAUM-591 210.

10. THE SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, PORT AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001.

... RESPONDENTS

( BY SRI R.G. KOLLE, AGA. )

WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO TAKE IMMEDIATE AND EFFECTIVE MEASURES FOR PREVENTION OF ILLEGAL SAND EXTRACTION IN VIOLATION OF THE AGREEMENT WITH THE PETITIONER AND FOR PROPER IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SAND POLICY INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO BLOCK NO.1, RIVER, BASALIGUNDI VILLAGE, TALUK GOKAK.

3

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

D.H.WAGHELA, CJ (ORAL) :

1. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to take steps for preventing illegal extraction of sand in violation of the agreement with the petitioner and for proper implementation of the sand policy insofar as it relates to Block No.I, Ghataprabha River,

Basaligundi Village, Gokak Taluk, on the basis that while the agreement with the petitioner was in operation, he was not allowed to extract sand.

2. It was pointed out by the learned A.G.A. appearing on advance copy that the contract given to the petitioner was for a limited period of nine months as indicated in the letter dated 2.6.2011 addressed to the petitioner. Thus, obviously the period of contract with the petitioner has expired since long.

4

3. Moreover the petition is based on vague and general allegations and is not required to be entertained and accordingly the petition is summarily dismissed.

Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/- JUDGE

ckc/-