The District Task Force Committee lacks jurisdiction to cancel a quarrying license; only designated competent authorities may do so after due process.

ORDER

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for quashing of Annexure A being the proceedings of the District Task Force (Mines) Committee and the District Stone Crushing Unit Licencing Regulation Authority (DTFC) held on 14.12.2020 whereunder the said Committee recommended the rejection of the application filed by the petitioner/lessee for restoration of the quarrying lease granted to the petitioner as also for quashing of Annexure-B being the order passed by the Senior Geologist, Department of Mines and Geology rejecting the permission for restoration of quarrying lease granted to the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner has sought for a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with the rights of the petitioner to conduct quarrying operation in terms of the Quarrying Lease No.801/2018-19.

2. The petitioner was granted quarrying lease for building stone in the land bearing Sy.No.5/P1 measuring 1 acre 28 guntas situated at Kumbatti Village, Hosanagar Taluk and Shivamogga District in terms of the QL No.801/2018-19 executed on 28.12.2018 for a period of 20 years. Prior to the execution of the lease, the petitioner had secured NOC from the Deputy Conservator of Forest (DCF), environment clearance from the competent authority etc.,.

3. On a complaint filed by certain persons said to be inimical to the petitioner, the DCF vide its letter dated 21.09.2019 addressed to the Senior Geologist withdrew the no objection issued earlier and requested the Senior Geologist to cancel/terminate the quarry lease. Pursuant thereto, the Senior Geologist – 4^th respondent without giving any notice or opportunity to the petitioner is stated to have terminated the registered quarry lease vide its order dated 17.12.2019, which came to be challenged before this Court in W.P.No.303/2020 wherein the said termination order was set aside and the quarry lease was restored. However, liberty was reserved to the competent authority to proceed if required under Rule 6 (3) of KMMC Rules.

4. The Senior Geologist – 4^th respondent is stated to have issued a notice on 26.05.2020. It was replied to by the petitioner on 15.06.2020 wherein a personal hearing was sought for. Without granting opportunity of hearing, 3^rd respondent – District Task Force Committee is stated to have recommended premature determination of the quarrying lease on which basis the Senior Geologist – 4^th Respondent has issued an endorsement informing that the quarrying lease granted to the petitioner is cancelled. It is aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

5. Sri. L.M. Chidanandayya, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that:

5.1. The 3^rd respondent - District Task Force Committee has been abolished by the Government of Karnataka and therefore, it does not have any jurisdiction to take up the matter for cancellation of quarrying license;

5.2. The 4^th respondent - Senior Geologist could not have considered the recommendation or a decision of cancellation of the 3^rd respondent. The withdrawal of 'No Objection Certificate' issued by the DCF cannot be a ground for cancellation of license in terms of Rule 6 (3) of the KMMC Rules;

5.3. There is a violation of principles of natural justice in that the petitioner has not been heard and no opportunity has been given.

5.4. The reply of the petitioner dated 15.06.2020 has not been considered.

5.5. There is no reason as such furnished for change of opinion of the DCF inasmuch as the DCF had earlier issued a 'No Objection Certificate after 'Joint Inspection'.

6. Per contra, Sri.Mahendra, the learned Additional Governm