2021 Supreme(Kar) 331

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Abhay S. Oka, Suraj Govindaraj, JJ.
M/s. Ganapathy Granite Impex Pvt Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
State of Karnataka, Represented by Secretary Department of Commerce and Industries (MSME & Mines) and ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.30397 & 30399 of 2018 (GM-MMS)
Decided On : 24-05-2021

Point of law : If there are any of disqualifications attached to any of these applicants, the same will have to be considered by the State Government. The factual inquiries as above cannot be appropriately made in writ jurisdiction and hence, the said exercise will have to be undertaken by the State Government.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 226 and 227 – Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 – Rules 8, 12 – Grant of quarrying lease for minor mineral pink granite – Two writ petitions are clubbed together as they take exception to same order passed on 20th June 2018 by Secretary to Government of Karnataka, Commerce and Industries Department – Order deals with 10 applications made by different parties for grant of quarrying lease for minor mineral pink granite in respect of a land in Survey No.43 of Daraburu village of Chikkaballapur Taluk and District.

Finding of the Court:

Impugned order proceeds on a completely wrong premise that compliances were made as contemplated by Clauses (d) of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 8B in respect of application of M/s. Fair Deal Stones – No Objection Certificate and Joint Inspection Report referred in impugned order are in respect of land and not applicants – It was necessary to consider all applications which were pending as on 12th August 2016 in context of applicability of clause (d) of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 8B. – If clause (d) is attracted in respect of more than one application in respect of same land, same will have to be considered on basis of said Rules which were in force before 2016 amendment came into force on 12th August 2016 – That is specific provision in clause (e) of Sub-Rule (2) of rule 8B. Rule 12 was repealed with effect from 12th August 2016 – Hence, applications subject matter of case will be governed by priorities mentioned in Rule 12 as it existed till 12th August 2016. – Priority under Rule 12 ought to have been considered in case of all applications covered by clause (d) of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 8B. – As No Objection Certificate and Joint inspection Report are in respect of applications made by nine applicants, in view of Clause (e) of Sub Rule (2) of Rule 8- B, cases of these parties will have to be considered as on 12th August 2016, according to priorities provided in Rule 12. – If there are any of disqualifications attached to any of these applicants, same will have to be considered by State Government – Factual inquiries as above cannot be appropriately made in writ jurisdiction and hence, said exercise will have to be undertaken by State Government – Approach of State Government in impugned order is erroneous – Hence, by setting aside impugned order, applications will have to be ordered to be considered afresh – Except for present petitioners, no other applicants have challenged impugned order – All applications will have to be considered afresh unless some of applicants do not want to press their applications.

Result : Petition Partly Allowed