IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT DATED THIS THE 20 TH DAY OF JUNE 2013 : PRESENT : THE HON’BLE MR. D.H.WAGHELA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA WRIT PETITION Nos. 12557-12590 / 2013 (GM-MM-S)

BETWEEN

1. M/S BRAMHALINGESHWARA STONE CRUSHING INDUSTRIES SY.NO. 18, NEELANAKOPPAL VILLAGE, TALUK, DISTRICT, BY IT’S PARTNER, SRI RAMAKRISHNA M

2. M/S SRI CHELUVARAYASWAMY STONE CRUSHER SY.NO.351, MUNDAGADORE VILLAGE, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT, BY IT’S PROPRIETOR SRI M.C.MARIYAPPA

3. M/S RAMA STONE CRUSHERS SY.NO.105, GANAGURE VILLAGE, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT, BY ITS PROPRIETOR SMT B.M.SUDHA

4. M/S SHIVA PRIYA STONE CRUSHERS SY.NO. 185, HANGARAHALLI VILLAGE BANNUR ROAD, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT, BY IT’S PARTNER SRI S.Y.AFSAR

5. M/S GOKUL STONE CRUSHER, SY.NO. 351, MUNDAGADORE VILLAGE, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, 2

MANDYA DISTRICT, BY IT’S PROPRIETOR SRI JAMEER AHAMAD.

6. M/S BOREDEVARU STONE CRUSHER SY.NO. 74, KALENAHALLI VILLAGE, K SHETTAHALLI HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT, BY IT’S PROPRIETOR SRI BORAPPA.

7. SRI SIDDESHWARA STONE CRUSHER, SY.NO. 351, MUNGADORE VILLAGE, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT, BY IT’S PROPRIETOR SRI G.L.LAKSHMEGOWDA.

8. M/S SUBRAMANYESHWARA STONE CRUSHER SY.NO. 351, MUNGADORE VILLAGE, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT, BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI K MANJUNATH.

9. M/S B.G.S STONE CRUSHER SY.NO. 383, MUNDAGADORE VILLAGE, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT, BY IT’S PROPRIETOR SRI C.M.NAVEEN CHANDRA.

10. M/S HINDUSTAN STONE CRUSHER SY.NO. 185, HANAGARAHALLI VILLAGE SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT, BY IT’S PROPRIETOR SRI FAZIL HUSSAIN

11. M/S A R S STONE CRUSHER SY.NO. 351, MUNDAGADORE VILLAGE SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT, BY IT’S PROPRIETOR SRI SHABBIR AHAMED

12. M/S MARUTHI STONE CRUSHER SY.NO. 115, KATHA NO. 141 3

CHANNANAKERE VILLAGE HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT, BY IT’S PROPRIETOR SRI GOPINATH Y.D.

13. M/S R P N STONE CRUSHER SY.NO. 128, GOWDAHALLI VILLAGE K SHETTAHALLI HOBLI SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT, BY IT’S PROPRIETOR SRI RAMALINGAIAH

14. M/S J J INDUSTRIES SY.NO. 78, CHENNAHERE VILLAGE JAKKANAHALLI POST, ARAKERE HOBLI SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT, BY IT’S PROPRIETOR SRI L.J.RAMDEV

15. M/S SRI MALLESHWARA STONE CRUSHER KODISHETTYPURA VILLAGE K SHETTAHALLI HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT, BY IT’S PROPRIETOR SRI MALLESH

16. M/S SRI ARAKESHWARA STONE CRUSHERS SITE NO. 53, KALENAHALLI VILLAGE K SHETTAHALLI HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT, BY IT’S PROPRIETOR SRI H.A.CHANDRASHEKARA

17. M/S YARB STONE CRUSHER KALENAHALLI VILLAGE K SHETTAHALLI HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT, BY IT’S PROPRIETOR SRI ABZAL

18. M/S BHARATH STONE CRUSHER SY.NO. 351, MUNDAGADORE VILLAGE SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT, BY IT’S PROPRIETOR SRI NASRUALLA KHAN 4

19. M/S DIAMOND STONE CRUSHER SY.NO. 351, MUNDAGADORE VILLAGE SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT, BY IT’S PROPRIETIX SMT. RESHMA NIKHAT W/O LATE SYED RAHAMATULLA

20. M/S KANKARD STONE CRUSHER SY.NO. 185, HANGARAHALLI VILLAGE SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT, BY IT’S PROPRIETOR SRI INDRAKUMAR

21. M/S HARSHA STONE CRUSHER SY.NO. 185, HANGARAHALLI VILLAGE SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT, BY IS PROPRIETOR SRI J HARSHVARDANA

22. M/S SRI CHAMUNDESHWARI STONE CRUSHING INDUSTRIES HANGARAHALLI VILLAGE SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT, BY IT’S PROPRIETOR SRI N PUTTASWAMY

23. M/S CHOWDESHWARI CRUSHER SY.NO. 185, HONGARAHALLI VILLAGE SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY IT’S PROPRIETOR SRI K.P.DINESH KUMAR

24. M/S ANJANEYA STONE CRUSHER SY.NO. 351, MUNDAGADORE VILLAGE SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY IT’S PROPRIETOR SRI M RAMANAYYA

25. M/S MARUTHI STONE CRUSHER SY.NO. 185, HONGARAHALLI VILLAGE SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK 5

MANDYA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY IT’S PROPRIETOR SRI S.N KANTHARAJU

26. M/S S L V STONE CRUSHER SY.NO. 185, HONGARAHALLI VILLAGE SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY IT’S PARTNER SRI R MANJUNATHREDDY

27. M/S SUMATHI STONE CRUSHER SY.NO. 81, RAGIMUDDENAHALLI VILLAGE KOTTATTI HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK & DISTRICT BY IT’S PROPRITRIEX SMT. M.S.ASHA

28. M/S D.K.ASSOCIATES SY.NO. 81, RAGIMUDDANAHALLI VILLAGE MANDYA-MYSORE ROAD, MANDYA, BY IT’S PARTNER SRI C SURESH

29. M/S PRIME STONE CRUSHER SY.NO. 351, MUNDUGADORE VILLAGE SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT, BY IT’S PROPRIETOR SRI FAROOQ AHAMED

30. LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA STONE CRUSHER SY.NO. 351, MUNDUGADORE VILLAGE SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT, BY IT’S PROPRIETOR SRI H.B.CHANDRASHEKAR

31. SRIRAMA STONE SY.NO. 82/2, 84/2, 84/3 SIDDAPURA VILLAGE, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT, BY IT’S PROPRIETOR SMT. K.R.PRABHAVATHI JAYARAM

32. M/S SIDDU STONE CRUSHER SY.NO. 43, HARAKANAHALLI VILLAGE MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT BY IT’S PROPRIETOR SRI N.C.PRASANNAKUMAR

6

33. M/S VENKATESHWARA STONE CRUSHER SY.NO. 43, HARAKANAHALLI VILLAGE MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT BY IT’S PROPRIETOR SRI M. CHANDRU

34. M/S SHANTHI STONE CRUSHER SY.NO. 43, HARAKANAHALLI VILLAGE MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT BY IT’S PROPRIETOR SRI B.K.APPAJEGOWDA

... PETITIONERS

( BY SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR P MAHESHA & KRISHNA B.J, ADVOCATES. )

A N D

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF MINES GEOLOGY KANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE - 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & LICENSING AUTHORITY, CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT STONE CRUSHERS REGULATION COMMITTEE, MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA-571401

3. THE KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD PARISARA BHAVANA, 4TH AND 5 TH FLOORS NO. 49, CHURCH STREET BANGALORE-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN

... RESPONDENTS

( BY SRI R.G. KOLLE, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2. SRI. D. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R-3. )

7

WRIT PETITIONS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY R-2, THE LICENSING AUTHORITY, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT STONE CRUSHERS REGULATION COMMITTEE, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA, VIDE ANNEXURES E-1 TO E-34, ETC.

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

O R D E R

The petitioners are the proprietors of various stone crushing units who have assailed the order of Respondent

No.2 Deputy Commissioner & Chairman of the District

Stone Crushers Regulation Committee, Mandya District, vide Annexures E-1 to E-34. They have also sought a direction against the respondents to permit them to continue their stone crusher units in the present location till the Safer Zones are notified.

2. The brief facts of the case are that pursuant to the order of the Division Bench of this court, which has been 8

affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Obayya Pujary’s case, the State Government has enacted the Karnataka

Regulation of Stone Crusher Act, 2011 and the Rules made thereunder. Under the said Act, Safer Zones have to be identified for locating the stone crusher units throughout the State. Section 3 of the said Act mandates that licences have to be obtained prior to setting up of stone crusher units in Safer Zones. Provision is made for the application for seeking licences, consideration thereof and also for shifting of the stone crusher units to Safer Zones.

3. In the instant case, most of the petitioners made their respective applications seeking permission to shift their existing stone crusher units to Safer Zones based on

Annexure-D, which is an order dated 20.10.2012 by the

Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Respondent No.3 herein, which has certified establishing of Safer Zones in

S.No.185 of Hangarahalli Village and S.No.351 of

Mundagadore Village, Srirangapatna Taluk, to an extent of

60 acres and 20 acres respectively. Of course, certain 9

other applications pertained to issuance of licences in respect of certain other survey numbers in certain villages which are not certified by Respondent No.3. The said applications were considered by the Deputy Commissioner as the Chairman of the Committee and all the applications have been rejected by a common reason that the land applied for has not been notified as Safer Zone under the provisions of the Act. The said rejection orders are at

Annexures E-1 to E-34, which are assailed in these writ petitions.

4. We have heard learned senior counsel Sri Ashok

Haranahalli for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. Sri R.G.Kolle for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel Sri

D.Nagaraj for Respondent No.3.

5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners initially submitted that the petitioners were justified in making their applications for obtaining licences in S.No.185 of

Hangarahalli Village and S.No.351 of Mundagadore Village 10

of Srirangapatna Taluk on the premise that the Karnataka

State Pollution Control Board had certified these areas as

Safer Zones. However, the Deputy Commissioner was not right in rejecting their applications on the ground that the lands applied for by the petitioners have not yet been notified as Safer Zones. During the course of his submissions, he has also submitted an application seeking an additional prayer by bringing to our notice the fact that as far as these two survey numbers in the said villages are concerned, there is a communication dated 17.6.2013 made by the Department of Commerce and Industry to the

Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District, with regard to the establishment of three Safer Zones in Mandya District and, as far as S.No.185 of Hangarahalli Village and S.No.351 of

Mundagadore Village are concerned, the matter has to be reconsidered having regard to the fact that the Department of Forest had stated that the said survey numbers have been classified as C and D category lands. He, therefore, submitted that, in view of the Departments themselves 11

reconsidering the matter, a direction should be issued to the concerned Departments to take a decision on these two survey numbers so that a notification could be issued in respect of these two survey numbers in accordance with law. He also contended that these two survey numbers are not C & D category lands and therefore they ought to have been declared as Safer Zones by the Deputy Commissioner of Mandya District.

6. Having regard to these submissions, the application for additional prayer is taken on record.

7. Learned A.G.A. appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 has brought to our notice that though the Karnataka State

Pollution Control Board had certified that these two survey numbers in the said villages could be established as

Safer Zones, they were subject to certain terms and conditions to be complied with. As the Forest Department had objected to these areas being declared as Safer Zones as they are categorized as C and D category lands, they 12

have to be considered as deemed forest. These areas thus not having been notified in Mandya District, two other areas in Taluk and K.R.Pet Taluk having been declared to be Safer Zones, the petitioners are at liberty to shift their stone crusher units to the said zones, if they so desire. Therefore, the rejection orders are in accordance with law is the submission of the learned

A.G.A.

8. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel on both sides and on a perusal of the material on record, we note that the stone crusher units cannot be located in their present locations as the present locations are not declared as Safer Zones. The petitioners, under the provisions of the Act, would have to obtain licences to carry on the stone crusher units only in the Safer Zones.

Their applications were in respect of S.No.185 of

Hangarahalli Village and S.No.351 of Mundagadore Village of Srirangapatna Taluk, which were certified by order of the

Karnataka State Pollution Control Board dated 20.10.2012, 13

which order was subject to certain terms and conditions to be complied by the State Government. Since the State

Government has not yet taken any decision to notify these survey numbers as Safer Zones, the Deputy Commissioner was justified in declining to grant licences and thereby rejecting the applications made by the petitioners.

9. However, in view of the recent developments which have been brought to our notice by learned senior counsel for the petitioners, in that there is a communication which has been addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya, dated 17.6.2013 (Annexure-F), there appears to be reconsideration of the matter in respect of those two survey numbers in the two villages. We find that the concerned authorities would have to take a decision as to whether, based on the certification issued by the Pollution Control

Board, those two survey numbers in the two villages could be declared as Safer Zones. Since the said decision has not yet taken place, we can only direct the authorities concerned to reapply their mind on this aspect of the 14

matter and to consider to notify these areas as Safer Zones in accordance with law.

10. In that view of the matter, the annexures impugned in these writ petitions would not call for any interference. The petitioners cannot also be granted any permission to carry on their stone crusher units in the present locations. The respondent authorities to reconsider the matter in the light of Annexure-F and the subsequent communication, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

It is needless to clarify that if and when any particular survey number is declared to be Safer Zone in accordance with law, the petitioners would be at liberty to apply for locating their stone crusher units in such Safer Zone. It is also clarified that the petitioners are otherwise at liberty to apply for licence if they propose to locate their stone crusher units in any other area, which is already declared as Safer Zone. 15

The petitions accordingly stand disposed of.

Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/- JUDGE

ckc/-