IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
N.V. ANJARIA, C.J., KRISHNA S DIXIT, J.
Sri S.R. Bellary, Son Of Late Rudrappa – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka - Respondent
WRIT PETITION NOS.25653/2022 C/W 25654/2022, 25655/2022, 25660/2022, 25680/2022, 12221/2023, 12229/2023, 17716/2023 AND 17912/2023 (GM-MM-S)
Decided on : 19-06-2024
Mining - Quarrying near Wildlife Sanctuary - KMMC Rules 1994 - The court upheld the prohibition of mining activities within one kilometer of wildlife sanctuaries, interpreting relevant rules and Supreme Court directives to ensure environmental protection.
Fact of the Case:
Nine writ petitions challenged a resolution and order suspending quarry leases due to their proximity to Kappatgudda Wildlife Sanctuary, citing violations of mining prohibitions established by the Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that all petitioners' quarry units were within the prohibited one-kilometer zone from the sanctuary, confirming the legality of the suspension orders based on established environmental regulations.
Issues: Whether the suspension of quarry leases within one kilometer of Kappatgudda Wildlife Sanctuary was lawful under the KMMC Rules and Supreme Court directives.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that mining activities are prohibited within one kilometer of wildlife sanctuaries, as mandated by the Supreme Court and relevant environmental regulations.
Result: All nine petitions are dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(Per : N.V.Anjaria, the CJ)
All these nine writ petitions have common thread of facts and the issue involved is identical. In that view, they were notified and heard together to be disposed of by this common order.
1.1 Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. G.S. Kannur assisted by learned Advocate Mr. P.M. Siddamallappa and Mr. K.Srikanth Patil for the petitioners and learned Government Advocate Mr. S.S. Mahendra for the respondents, at length.
2. In these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, what is prayed by the petitioners is to set aside resolution dated 29th September 2022 passed by the District Task Force Committee (Mines), Gadag District. Also prayed to set aside is order dated 5th December 2022. Interim prayer was made for stay of the said resolution dated 29th September 2022 as well as the order dated 5th December 2022.
2.1 All the petitions contain same and similar prayer seeking to set aside the resolution and the order of even dates passed in their individual cases.
2.2 The resolution dated 29th September 2022 sought to be impugned was passed pursuant to the proceedings of the District Task Force Committee (Mines), the District Sand Monitoring Committee and the District Stone Crushers Licensing and Regulation Authority meeting held under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner, Gadag. The Committee inter alia discussed the issues relating to stone and sand quarry leases located within one kilometre boundary of Kappatgudda Wildlife Sanctuary.
2.3 It noted interalia that in view of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order dated 7th June 2006 on I.A. No.1000 of 2003 in Writ Petition No.202 of 1995, no proposal for mining in the Sanctuary and National Park or within one kilometre from the boundary of Sanctuary or National Park should be forwarded to the SCNBWL, it recorded that there was a prohibition of mining activity within such peripheral area. The mining activities were required to be stopped in the boundary of Wildlife Sanctuary and National Park and if quarrying activities are continued within such area and the operations have to be suspended, it was resolved.
2.4 It was therefore unanimously decided to suspend fourteen quarry leases located within one kilometre boundary of Kappathgudda Wildlife Sanctuary and to cancel the lease if any violation is found. The stone crusher units under different petitions herein were found to be operating within the prohibited area.
2.5 The other order challenged in the petition is dated 5th December 2022 passed by the Senior Geologist and Competent Authority, Department of Mines and Geology, Gadag, whereby the Competent Authority exercised its powers under Rule 8-K(2) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Regulations, 1994, to suspend the stone quarry leases of the petitioners to completely prohibit the quarrying activities. The quarrying lease of the petitioner in the first captioned petition was in 3 acres and 10 guntas in Survey Nos.210/1 and 210/2 at Shirahatti Village, Shirahatti Taluk, Gadag District, which was disband.
2.6 It was provided that legal action would be taken to cancel the stone quarrying licence as per Rule 6(3) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Regulations, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘KMMC Rules 1994’). All the nine petitioners have challenged the very resolution dated 29th September 2022 and the order of even date as above issued to them by the Competent Authority suspending the stone quarry licence under the aforesaid Rule 8-K(2) of the KMMC Rules 1994.
3. Before adverting to the merits of the impugned decision, in order to have a complete idea of the factual aspects pleaded, the facts may be drawn from the first Writ Petition No.25653 of 2022. The case of the petitioner was inter alia that it was granted licence for ordinary building stone quarry in 3 acres of land in Survey No.1210/1 and 2 from 10th May 2017 at Shirahatti Village, Shirahatti Taluk, Gadag District, for a period of twenty years. It was sta
T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad Vs. Union of India [(2022) 10 SCC 589]
The court reinforced the prohibition of mining within one kilometer of wildlife sanctuaries, emphasizing adherence to environmental protection laws.
Point of law : Right of quarrying - Under sub-rule (1) of Rule 32, it is provided no person in possession of patta lands in Karnataka State shall undertake quarrying operations in his land for minor ....
The court affirmed the right to interim relief for stone removal from a quarry operating outside the Eco-Sensitive Zone, balancing environmental regulations with the entitlement of the quarry owner.
''Zero Meter'' Eco-sensitive Zone- Law does not require a procedure akin to one, which is being followed at the time of making an environment impact assessment before giving clearance.
The court emphasized the importance of considering the potential impact of quarrying on the surrounding ecosystem and wildlife, as well as the existence of an alternate remedy under Rule 36-C. The de....
Stoppage of mining activity in vicinity of Elephant Corridor – Dispute can be resolved by giving a direction to State Government to implement Comprehensive Wildlife Management Plan and complete proce....
Protection of forest land – Mining within national parks and wildlife sanctuaries shall not be permitted – No new permanent structure shall be permitted to come up for whatsoever purpose within ESZ.
The insistence in Ext.P8 office memorandum for prior clearance from the Standing Committee for projects within 10 kilometres from National Parks was unsustainable in law as it did not follow the proc....
The judgment emphasizes the principle of prospective application of laws and the requirement for proper verification of facts and consideration of existing legal rights before issuing directives.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.