SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
M/S BHUSHAN ENTERPRISES – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WP/15654/2020



- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

WRIT PETITION NO.15654 OF 2020(GM-MM-S)

BETWEEN:

M/S BHUSHAN ENTERPRISES

REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER

GEORGE ABRAHAM

AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

NO. 234, 1ST STAGE

NARAYANA NAGAR

DODDAKALLASANDRA POST - 560 062

KANAKAPURA ROAD

BENGALURU

... PETITIONER

(BY SHRI. RAVINDRA GAJANAN KOLLE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY

VIDHANA SOUDHA

BENGALURU - 560 001

2 . THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

DEPARTMENT FO COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES

VIKASA SOUDAH

BENGALURU

BENGALURU - 560 001

3 . THE DIRECTOR AND COMMISSIONER

DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY

KHANIJA BHAVAN

RACE COURSE ROAD

BENGALURU - 560 001

- 2 -

4 . THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETRY

DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS

ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

VIDHANA SOUDHA

BENGALURU - 560 001

5 . THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY

DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY

S3 AND S3A, ZILLADALITHA BHAVANA

2ND FLOOR, KUMBARAHALLI, KOLAR

KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 103

6 . THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST

O/O THE DCF, KOLAR DIVISION

BANGARPET ROAD, KOLAR

KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101

7 . THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS

KARNATAKA FOREST DEPARTMENT

ARANYA BHAVAN

18TH CROSS

MALLESHWARAM

BENGALURU - 560 003

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI. I.TARANATH POOJARY,AGA)

---

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO

DIRECT TO QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT

DATED:18.11.2020

AND

FOREST

OPINION/NOC

DATED:03.11.2020 RESPECTIVELY ISSUED BY R-5 SENIOR

GEOLOGIST AND 6TH RESPONDENT DEPUTY CONSERVATOR

OF

FOREST

PRODUCED

AT

ANNEXURE-A

AND

C

RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING

THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE

MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Notice for final disposal was issued on the earlier date.

- 3 -

2.

The petitioner was granted a quarrying lease for

ordinary building stone under the provisions of the Karnataka

Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short ‘the said

Rules’). The lease was for a period of ten years. The petitioner

sought for deemed extension of lease in terms of sub-rule (4)

of Rule 8-A of the said Rules as amended with effect from 12th

August 2016. The challenge in this writ petition under Article

226 of the Constitution of India is to Annexures-A and C.

Annexure-C is the letter addressed by the Deputy Conservator

of Forest to the Senior Geologist in which it is stated that the

radius of 10 Kms. from the Wildlife Sanctuary shall be

considered as a "Default Eco-Sensitive Zone". In terms of the

said letter, an endorsement dated 18th November 2020 at

Annexure-A has been issued stating that the site of the lease

subject matter of this writ petition is at a distance of 7.40 kms.

from the Kamasandra Wildlife Sanctuary (for short 'the said

Wildlife Sanctuary') and therefore, it is falling within the "Default

Eco-Sensitive Zone" of width of 10 Kms. It is further stated that

the deemed extension for the lease will be processed after

producing

No

Objection

Certificates

from

the

various

departments and after obtaining prior approval of the Standing

Committee of the National Board for Wildlife.

- 4 -

3.

The submission of the learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner made on the last date was based on what is

held by the Apex Court in Paragraph 50 of the decision in the

case of Goa Foundation vs Union of India and others1. He

would submit that the concept of "Default Eco-sensitive Zone"

is not known to law.

4.

The learned Additional Government Advocate

relied upon the order dated 4th December 2016 in W.P.No.460

of 2004 passed by the Apex Court. He relied on the Official

Memorandum dated 8th Augus

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top