In the High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Dated this the 25 th Day of September, 2014 Before THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH Writ Petition No.106374/2014 (GM-RES) BETWEEN RAMAPPA PANDAPPA MARADI, S/O. PANDAPPA, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. TEGGI VILLAGE, TQ: BILGI, DIST: BAGALKOT ..... 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 2 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY, BAGALKOT 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAGALKOT DIVISION, BAGALKOT 5. THE KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PARISARA BHAVAN, NO. 49, 4 TH & 5 TH 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, 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 R1-4, R-7 & R-8) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE LICENSE NO.017 & 027 DATED 07.10.2013 AS PER ANNEXURE-L AND M BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF MINES & GELOGY, BAGALKOT- RESPONDENT NO.3 ISSUED TO RESPONDENT NO.10 & 11 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-N 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. 2. Notice to other respondents is dispensed with. 4 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.255/1 and 255/2A measuring 2 acre 20 guntas situated at Bilagi Taluk, Teggi village. There is said to Be quarrying and stone crushing activity in the land Bearing Sy.No.256/1B. 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 has simply proceeded to issue license. As the property of the petitioner is close to the property of respondents No.9 to 10, it is causing damage to the crop grown in his land, as such he seeks to quash the license issued By 5 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 to the tune of Rs.30 lakhs to the crop grown in Sy.Nos.255/1 and 255/2A measuring 2 acres 20 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 such damage Being caused and also there is no enquiry report as to stopping of the quarrying and stone crushing. The petition is filed in the form of puBlic interest litigation But it is in a individual capacity and does not have the character of PuBlic Interest Litigation. 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 6 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 the 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.

Load more