WP/59732/2015 of V. SUDHAKARA REDDY Vs THE CHAIRMAN OF THE DISTRICT STONE on 31 December 2015

1. |The Chairman oft the District StoneCrushers Licensing & Regulation Authority,The Deputy Commissioner,Kolar District,Crushers Licensing & Regulation Authority,The Deputy Commissioner,Kolar District, Kolar — 563 101.

2 |The Member Secretary,

District Stone

Crushers Licensing & Regulation Authority, The Senior Geologist (Minerals), Department of Mines & Geology, Kolar — 563 101.

3. |The Assistant Commissioner,

Kolar Sub- division,

Kolar- 563 101.

4The Executive Engineer,PWD, Port Inland Water Transport PWD, Port Inland Water Transport Department, Kolar- 563 101.

5. |The Regional Commissioner,Bangalore Division, 2[),]Floor,Bangalore Division, 2[),]Floor, B.M.T.C. Building, K.H.Road, ohanthinagar,|

Bengaluru — 560 027

...Respondents.

(By Shri.D.Nagaraja, AGA)

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 ot|the Constitution of India praying to restrain the R-1 & 2from interfering with the crushing activities of the petitionerin Sy.No.187 (V.P.Khata No.53) of K.B. Hosahalli, KolarTaluk and District and etc. |

This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this|

day,|Anand Byrareddy J‘made the following:- ORD ER

Though this petition is listed for preliminary hearing,it is taken up for final disposal.

The learned Government Advocate is directed to take|notice for respondents 1 to 5.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that, petitioner is aClass-1 Public Works Department Contractor, Governmentof Karnataka, who has a number of contractual agreementspending execution. He has been conducting stone crushingactivities in land bearing survey number 18/7 (V.P.KhataNo.93) of K.B.Hosahalli Village. After the promulgation ofthe Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011, heis said to have filed an application seeking declaration ofthe aforesaid area as a safe zone.

3. The third respondent namely, the Assistant|

Commissioner, Kolar Sub-division, Kolar, is said to haveconducted a Joint Inspection and had directed the second respondent to issue notice to the petitioner to stop crushingactivities. This was said to be on the ground that there wasresidential house near the unit, about 320 metres away. Itis alleged that, the second respondent without issuing anynotice and without hearing the petitioner as enunciatedunder Section 10 of the Act, has rejected the application. Itis the case of the petitioner that, Section 7 of the Act dealswith the need for a License for Stone Crushers forGovernment Projects. The first and second respondents,without complying with Section 7/7 of the Act, havproceeded to reject the application. Aggrieved by the orderspassed by the first and second respondents, the petitionerhad preferred an appeal before the fifth respondent andhad sought interim relief. The fifth respondent had orallyexpressed that he had no powers to grant an order of stayand has rejected the prayer for an interim order. —

4. Since the petitioner has been carrying on stone|crushing activities in the very area from the year 2005, and since he is engaged in execution of projects entrusted tohim by the State Government, it would be appropriate tosrant interim relief to the petitioner to carry on stonecrushing activities. The petitioner is granted leave to carryon stone crushing activity subject to the condition that theactivity will not affect any other third party in any mannernot shall result in polluting the environment of thesurroundings. The fifth respondent shall hear and disposeof the appeal expeditiously, in any event, within a period of three months from today.

The petition is accordingly disposed of.

Sd/-.

JUDGE

Sd/-.

JUDGE

AP