Back
PRASANNA B. VARALE, KRISHNA S. DIXIT
S. T. Prasad – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks to quash prior orders and secure lease. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner's counsel argues against the dismissal of the revision. (Para 2) |
| 3. respondent's counsel justifies denial based on conditions unmet. (Para 3) |
| 4. court reviews notification conditions, finds non-compliance. (Para 4) |
| 5. petition dismissed due to lack of merit. (Para 5) |
ORDER :
(Prasanna B. Varale, CJ.)
Petitioner, a quarrying lease aspirant is knocking at the doors of Writ Court with the following two principal prayers:
B) issue a writ of mandamus or direction of like nature directing the 4th Respondent Authority to execute the quarrying lease deed in favour of the petitioner in pursuance of the notification dated 08.04.2011 vide No/DMG/CMD/NOTIFICATION/01/2011-12 Annexure-F."
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners highlighting the material facts as co
Compliance with statutory provisions is crucial; failure to commence operations within specified periods renders lease applications void.
To claim extension of the period of lease, the petitioner must establish that the quarry remained closed due to an order passed by the State Government, as per Rule 8-A of the Karnataka Minor Mineral....
Timely Environmental Clearance under extended Rules validates quarry operations; demands for prior period invalid without fresh excess enquiry.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision to extend a quarry lease should be in accordance with the recommendation of the competent authority and the relevant provisions o....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
