Licenses granted under the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act must continue unless revoked based on valid legal grounds, and amendments permitting deemed extensions take precedence.

JUDGMENT :

N.V. ANJARIA, C.J.

1. The two captioned petitions involve the same subject matter. Not only the facts are common, but the issues are similar and identical and the parties are the same. The third is a contempt petition arising out of the proceedings of Writ Petition No.9037 of 2022. In that view, all the three petitions were heard together to be treated for disposal simultaneously by this common judgment.

2. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. S.S. Naganand with learned advocate Mr. S. Kumar in both the petitions for the petitioner as well as in the contempt petition for the complainant, learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar for the respondents in the writ petitions and learned Additional Government Advocate Mr. Naveen Chandrashekar for the respondents in the contempt proceedings.

3. Writ Petition No.9037 of 2022 was filed by the petitioner- M/s. Prabhavathi Stone Crushers first in point of time, wherein the prayer was made to set aside order dated 31.03.2022 passed by respondent No.3-the District Regulation of Stone Crusher and Licensing Authority. Thereby the Licence Form-C granted to the petitioner came to be cancelled. Stated in nutshell, the case of the petitioner in this petition was that licence was granted to the petitioner for manufacture of Aggregates in respect of the land bearing Survey No.117/2 admeasuring 2 Acres situated at Alpahalli Village, Pandavapura Taluka, Mandya District. The cancellation of the licence was based on the ground that the property was located within 100 meters from the Major District Road.

3.1 The petitioner stated that on 15.05.2017, it made a request for grant of stone crusher licence filling the necessary Form-A by giving the requisite details and furnishing the relevant documents. The Licensing Authority and other Authorities namely, the Senior Geologist of the Department of Mines and Geology, the Tahsildar of the Revenue Department, the Range Forest Officer of the Forest Department and the Environment Officer of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board conducted a spot inspection. The report was submitted recommending that the property in question in respect of which the licence was asked for by the petitioner was suitable for declaration as safer zone for the purpose of grant of Form-C to establish the stone crusher unit:

3.1.1 The Licensing Authority thereafter considered the report and declared the area to be safer zone as per the Notification dated 14.12.2017. It is stated that thereafter the Forest Authorities granted approval including the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board which gave Consent for Operation to commence production of Aggregates at the land property. It is stated by the petitioner that Rs.5.5 crores was invested in establishing the stone crusher unit.

3.1.2 A show cause notice dated 23.04.2021 came to be issued by the Competent Authority stating that the place for which the licence was granted to the petitioner was at a distance of 73 meters from the Major District Road and thus within 100 meters, it was violative of Section 6 (1)(b) of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011. The petitioner replied to the said show cause notice on 06.05.2021.

3.1.3 The petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.734 of 2020, in which it was held that once the land is declared as safer zone and licence was granted on that basis, subsequently the Licensing Authority has no jurisdiction to cancel such declaration. It appears that subsequently, the order dated 31.07.2021 was passed by the Authority cancelling the licence on the ground of the distance which was claimed to be less than 100 meters from the Major District Road, which decision came to be challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No.15339 of 2021. This court remanded the matter so as to afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which was not given while passing the order dated 31.07.2021.

3.1.4 It is next stated that the competent officials o