A review petition cannot be entertained if the issues raised fall outside the narrow legal scope of review jurisdiction, such as attempting to re-litigate factual determinations regarding safe zones and inspection requirements.

Di gitally signed by GEETHA P G

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULES 1 AND 3 OF CPC., 1908, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE REVIEW PETITION AND REVIEW THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.9037 OF 2022 CONNECTED WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4010 OF 2024, BY RESTORING THE MATTER FOR REHEARING AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

and

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. The State has filed the present review petition seeking review of the order dated 28.05.2025 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.4010 of 2024 (GM-MM-S) c/w Writ Petition No.9037 of 2022 (GM-MM-S).

2. In terms of the said order, this Court had allowed writ petition No.4010 of 2024 and declared that the respondent (writ petitioner) is deemed to have been granted extension for its licence for a period of twenty years under Section 5(2) of the Amended Act No.28 of 2020. Consequently, the petitioners were directed to treat Form-C licence No.34 of 2018-19 of 2806 dated 02.02.2019 granted to the respondent (writ petitioner) to have been extended for a period of twenty years from the said date. The respondent had filed the said writ petition inter alia praying that a direction be issued to the petitioners to treat the aforementioned Form-C licence as deemed to have been granted for a period of twenty years.

3. Learned Government Advocate submits that the said decision overlooks the fact that a joint inspection is required to be conducted prior to grant of the deemed renewal. He submits that the joint survey would determine whether the unit is within the safe zone as stipulated under Section 6 of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011. He submits that a road exists within a distance of 35 metres from the said unit, and therefore, the respondent's unit does not fall within the safe zone. We note that this Court had examined the question whether any redetermination of the safe zone was required in light of the Explanation to Section 6 of the said Act.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that there is no question of examining whether the unit falls within the safe zone as the safe zone notification has not been withdrawn.

5. As is apparent from the above, the issues raised in the present review petition fall outside the scope of the review. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed.

6. We may clarify that this would not preclude the State from taking any steps albeit in accordance with law.