BHIMAPPA ALIAS BHIMA NAIK Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR the purpose of disposing of these cases, we narrate the facts in W. P. No. 5912 of 1996 out of which W. A. No. 654 of 1998 arises.

(2.) THE appellants are the quarry owners and they were granted quarrying lease and lease deeds were executed. Due to some delay before the quarrying started, some of the appellants had to apply for renewal of the lease. As no order was passed, writ petitions were filed in this Court. Meanwhile, the rules were amended. Therefore, this Court directed the appellants to file a application as per the amended rules and directed the respondents to consider the applications within a time frame. Accordingly, applications were made. As the renewal applications were not considered, again writ petitions were filed and there was an interim order in favour of the appellants. Meanwhile, by an order dated 31-1-1996, the application for renewal of licence for quarrying made by the appellants was rejected by the authorities concerned. In the counter filed by the respondents denying the allegations, it is submitted that the quarry lease held by the appellants has not been renewed in view of Rule 3-A of the Rules as the same prohibits the grant or renewal of granite lease in favour of private persons. Further, the Karnataka Minor Mineral concession Rules, 1994 ('rules' for short) which came into effect from 28-5-1994 clearly states that no quarrying lease shall be granted in any forest land except that such lease of land may be granted by the State in favour of any undertaking owned by the Central Government or State government after obtaining prior approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. It is submitted that the renewal application filed by the appellants was examined by the Committee constituted under Rule 11 of the rules and after consideration of all facts, the Committee has recommended to the Government for rejection of renewal of quarry lease application of the appellants in view of Rule 8 (2) of the rules which prohibits grant of quarrying lease in forest area. It is submitted that the State Government has constituted a committee of both the legislative houses to suggest measures for proper formulation of policy on minor minerals deposits. In its report, the Committee has stated that there shall be a ban on quarrying in any forest land. The committee has further opined that quarrying of granite in forest area has so far caused considerable damage to environment and ecology besides disturbing the life of flora and fauna and it is very important to protect the very tender forest cover. It is stated that as per Article 48a of the Constitution of India, protection of ecological balance, forest and environment is the policy of the State. After receipt of the report by the Joint Legislative Committee, Government constituted a cabinet sub-committee for suggestions on the said report and as per the cabinet sub-committee's suggestions, Government has made provisions for granite quarrying by government Agencies in the forest Area in the revised rules of 1994. It is further contended that if quarrying is allowed in forest area by private persons, there will be large scale destruction of forest area and the rich resource of forest is lost. Moreover, it may not be possible to keep continuous supervision on all private quarry holders and so the Central and State Government undertakings were allowed to quarry granite in the forest to a limited extent with other conditions imposed on the said undertakings/agencies as per rules so as to facilitate the government to intervene in the quarry operation if any violation is committed. It is submitted that Rule 8 (2) and proviso made in the rules are only in the interest of protecting natural wealth for future generation and for maintaining ecological balance. Hence, the said rule is not illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires of Section 15 of Mines and Minerals (Resource and Development) Act as contended by the appellants and the action taken by the respondents rejecting the application of the appellants is correct and well within the rules.

(3.) THE writ petitions filed by the appellants were rejected by the learned Single Judge as having been covered by an earlier decision in B. S. Suresh v State of Karnataka and Others. Hence, these appeals.