Back
2000 Supreme(Kar) 93
Karnataka High Court
R.S.Exports~ - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondent
Decided On : 02-04-00
W.P. : 4080 of 1998
A.PADMANABHAN, L.M.Chidanandaiah
A partnership firm, as a legal entity, cannot transact its business and any contravention of the rules by any partner reflects on the firm itself.
Headnote:
quash - quarry license - Karnataka Land Grant Rules, Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1994 - Rule 34(2), Rule 11, Rule 8(4) - The court dismissed the writ petition seeking to quash the notification revoking the quarry license, as the petitioner had no valid title or right to seek the reliefs for excavation, removal, and transportation of the mineral from the granted land. The court held that the petitioner firm, being a legal entity, cannot transact its business and any contravention of the rules by any partner reflects on the firm itself. The court also emphasized that the grantee of the land had no right over the mineral available in the granted land and therefore had no power to give consent to the petitioner for exploiting the granite.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a partnership firm, sought to quash the notification revoking the quarry license granted for quarrying black granite in 4 acres of land. The petitioner claimed to have obtained consent of the grantee to exploit the mineral existing in the land as required under the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1994.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner had no valid title or right to seek the reliefs for excavation, removal, and transportation of the mineral from the granted land. The court emphasized that the grantee of the land had no right over the mineral available in the granted land and therefore had no power to give consent to the petitioner for exploiting the granite.
Issues: Validity of the notification revoking the quarry license, contravention of the provisions of the rules by the petitioner firm, and entitlement of the petitioner for the reliefs sought in the petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner firm, being a legal entity, cannot transact its business and any contravention of the rules by any partner reflects on the firm itself. The grantee of the land had no right over the mineral available in the granted land and therefore had no power to give consent to the petitioner for exploiting the granite.
Final Decision: The writ petition seeking to quash the notification revoking the quarry license was dismissed by the court.
( 1 ) THE petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on business of excavation, removing, transporting and exporting granite. It has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the notification at Annexure-A date 30-7-1997 revoking the quarry license granted to it on 20-8-96 for quarrying black granite in 4 acres of land in Sy. No. 80 of Veeranpura in Chamarajanagar Taluk of Mysore District.
( 2 ) ). The brief facts of the case are, the aforesaid land was granted to one Smt. Kanakarathnamma under the Karnataka Land Grant Rules (hereinafter referred to as Land Grant Rules ). The petitioner states that it has obtained the consent of the grantee to exploit the mineral existing in the land in question as required under Rule 34 (2) of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' ). It is stated that in view of the view taken by this Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Dondumadha Shetty ILR (1993) Kant 2506 that pattadars of granted lands are not entitled to excavate granite from the granted lands unless quarrying lease or license from the Mines and Geology Department, the grantee and the petitioner filed W. P. No. 22813/1995 seeking permission to do the quarrying operations till the disposal of the application for quarrying license on the ground that the granted land cannot be given to any other person. On 6-9-95 the said writ petition was allowed directing the respondents therein not to interfere with the rights of the petitioners to excavate, remove and transport granite from the land in question. A further direction was issued to issue mineral despatch permits. In the meanwhile, the petitioner asserts that it has filed application for grant of quarrying license and submitted all the necessary documents on 1-7-95. It is stated that since the said application was not disposed of within a period of 4 months and as there was delay in disposing of the application, the petitioner has approached this Court and obtained the order referred to above. Persuant to the application filed by the petitioner a decision was taken by the committee constituted under Rule 11 of the rules and the land in question was notified for grant of quarrying license vide notification at Annexure-C dt. 20-8-96. It was followed by letter at Annexure-D dt. 10-9-96 informing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 2000/- towards survey and demarcation charges Rs. 30,000/- and towards 50% of dead rent, which the petitioner did. The survey was conducted and the petitioner was handed over licence deed for execution for having granted the license. It is stated that the license deed has been executed and kept in the Office of the Deputy Director (Mineral Administration) for being handed over to the petitioner to get it registered. At that juncture the impugned notification at Annexure-A was issued, it appears an objection had been raised that one Rajendrakumar, one of the partner of the petitioner firm has contravened the provisions of the Rules and on that ground the license deed was not furnished to the petitioner to get it registered. It was followed by the issuance of the impugned notification at Annexure-A revoking the quarry license granted in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the reliefs referred to in paragraph 1 of this order.
( 3 ) IN the statement of objections filed on behalf of the respondents it is stated that the application filed by the petitioner on 17-7-95 had already been disposed of under Annexure-C dt. 28-6-96 granting quarrying lease in favour of the petitioner, which has been subsequently revoked under Annexure-A. Therefore, question of granting the relief sought for to issue mineral despatch permits does not arise. It is pointed out that the land in question is a granted land and the grantee has no right over the mineral available therein and in the case of Dundamadha Shetty (ILR (1993) Kant 2506) this Court has held that holde
