Back
2018 Supreme(Kar) 1240
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Dinesh Maheshwari, Krishna S. Dixit, JJ.
M/s. Abhinandan Stone Crushers - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Karnataka, Rep. By Its Chief Secretary And Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 1661 OF 2018 (GM-MM-S)
Decided On : 21-06-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri. R.G. Kolle, Advocate
For the Respondent: Sri. Vikram Huilgol, HCGP
Headnote:
Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 - Section 5 - Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Rules, 2012 Rule 3A and Section 3 – s Ought for a writ of mandamus - Licenses granted prior to the amendment - Petitioner was issued with Stone Crusher License bearing provisions of Section 5 of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 an and District - License was for a period of approximately - petitioner was issued license to run the stone crusher unit for a period of three years - License specifically states that it would be valid license was granted under the provisions of Section 5 of Act when the period of license was statutorily fixed as three years i.e., during the pre-amended regime - petitioner was granted license and that amended Section 5 prescribes five years as the period of validity of the license - Provision is prospective in operation and further, in absence of a deeming clause applicable to the licenses granted prior to the amendment validity of the petitioner’s license would be three years that ended - petitioner ought to have filed his renewal application on or before license being there being no provision for condonation of delay – Held, Judgment of Division Bench of this Court in - Government Advocate, even if the amendment to Sections 2 and 5 of the Act is assumed to be retrospective in operation, still it would not advance the case of the petitioner because as on that date, i.e., 26.12.2013, his application for grant of license was not pending, the same having been admittedly disposed - applicant for licence does not have a vested interest for grant of licence and where grant of licence depends on various factors or eligibility criteria and public interest, the consideration should be with reference to law applicable on the date when the authority considers applications for grant of licences and not with reference to the date of application – Court have carefully perused the provisions of the Act and more particularly, the amended Sections 2 and 5 of the Act and we find that the deeming provision which the learned counsel for the petitioner wants us to see through, is conspicuously absent. Deeming being a legislative action – Court same cannot be provided by way of interpretative process - Contention of the learned counsel fails - contention of the learned counsel for petitioner application for renewal filed 2016 even otherwise is pending consideration and that the same having been recommended by statutory authorities, ought to be granted by the respondents, does not merit acceptance inasmuch as the same has not been filed three months prior to expiry of license - ought to have made the application on or since his license was valid - Going by language of Section 4, said provision appears to be mandatory - Parliament in its wisdom has made no provision for condonation of delay - Petitioner’s application for renewal does not merit consideration - Complaints/representation of the villagers about the menace of pollution allegedly caused by stone crushers and mine operators, respondent – Deputy Commissioner has taken a decision not to receive any application for renewal till after expert study of pollution levels is made - Writ petition is dismissed
ORDER :
KRISHNA S. DIXIT, J.
1. In this writ petition, petitioner in substance has sought for a writ of mandamus to the 3rd respondent -Deputy Commissioner cum Licensing Authority to extend the validity period of his Stone Crusher License dated 04.04.2013 from 31.03.2016 to 31.03.2018 and in the alternative, to renew the said license for a period of five years effective from 01.04.2018 till 31.03.2023 in view of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers (Amendment) Act, 2013.
2. After service of notice, the respondents have entered appearance through the learned Additional Government Advocate Sri. Vikram Huilgol and have filed the Statement of Objections on 21.03.2018 resisting petitioner’s contentions and the claim.
3. The brief facts stated by the petitioner are:-
(a) Petitioner was issued with the Stone Crusher License bearing No.CRL 20 MIN CR 162/2013-14 dated 04.04.2013 under the provisions of Section 5 of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 (‘the Act’) over an area of 1 A – 20 G of land in Sy.No.118 (Old No.43) of Chikkanagavalli village, Chikkaballapura Taluk and District. The said license was for a period of approximately three years from the date of issue i.e., 04.04.2013 and the said period was to come to an end on 31.03.2016.
(b) Petitioner filed an application for renewal of the said license on 06.01.2016 and despite availability of joint inspection report and all other clearances, the same was not considered. In an identical set of facts in W.P.No.11772/2017, a direction has been issued by the Division Bench of this Court on 20.03.2017 to the respondent authorities to consider the application for renewal in accordance with law.
(c) Now that, section 5 of the Act having been amended with effect from 26.12.2013, inter alia, extending the validity period of license from 3 years to 5 years, the respondent authorities ought to have issued an order or corrigendum to the effect that the validity period of petitioner’s license is deemed to be 5 years. This has not been done and, therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. The brief facts stated by the respondent authorities are:-
(a) It is true that the petitioner was issued license dated 04.04.2013 to run the stone crusher unit for a period of three years. The license specifically states that it would be valid upto 31.03.2016. This license was granted under the provisions of Section 5 of the Act when the period of license was statutorily fixed as three years i.e., during the pre-amended regime.
(b) The Act was amended with effect from 26.12.2013 i.e., long after petitioner was granted license and that the amended Section 5 prescribes five years as the period of validity of the license. The said provision is prospective in operation and further, in the absence of a deeming clause applicable to the licenses granted prior to the amendment, the validity of the petitioner’s license would be three years that ended on 31.03.2016.
(c) Petitioner’s application dated 06.01.2016 is also liable to be rejected as the same is not filed three months before the expiry of the license as prescribed by Section 4 of the Act. Thus, the petitioner ought to have filed his renewal application on or before 31.12.2015, the license being valid till 31.03.2016, there being no provision for condonation of delay.
(d) Petitioner license came to an end on 31.03.2016 and despite that, petitioner is found to be carrying on the crushing activity which is in violation of Section 3 of the Act and Rule 3A of Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Rules, 2012, the provisions of Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994. Therefore, a criminal case in FIR No.340/2017 is registered on 25.10.2017 in the jurisdictional police station.
(e) There had been several complaints from the villagers with respect to stone crushing units and quarrying leases in Chikkanagavalli village and, therefore, after thorough deliberation, a decision is take
