CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench

D. Surendra Kumar vs State Of Karnataka & Others

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 11 October 2022 · Citation: (2022) 10 KAR CK 0005

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Aradhe, J · S Vishwajith Shetty, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Amendment Rules, 2020 — Rule 7
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 5681 Of 2020 (GM-MM-S)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 370 words

Alok Aradhe, J

1.

The petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for the following reliefs:

(i) Issue writ of mandamus or any appropriate direction directing the respondent No.3 to act upon the representations made by the petitioner and to take appropriate action under the representations made before the respondent No.3 vide Annexure-E dated 05.09.2019 and Annexure-F dated 14.10.2019.

(ii) Issue writ of direction or writ of mandamus, directing respondents No.3 authority to act upon the representations made by the petitioner vide Annexures-E & F dated 05.09.2019 and 14.10.2019, respectively and thereof issue the lease / license book to the petitioner, so as to carry on the quarrying work in a peaceful manner.

(iii) Pass any other writ or direction which may be deemed fit to grant under the above facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice and equity.

2.

Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the controversy involved in the instant writ petition is covered by an order dated 12.03.2021 passed by a division bench of this court in W.P.No.29534/2019.

3.

In view of the aforesaid submission and for the reasons assigned in the judgment, the writ petition is disposed of on the following terms:

(i) We direct that the cases of the present petitioners based on any of clauses (a) to (d-1) of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 8-B of the said Rules of 1984 shall be We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. By the concerned authority of the State in the light of the amendment to clause (3) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B made by virtue of Rule 7 of the Amendment Rules of 2020;

(ii) We clarify that if any of these cases eligibility of the petitioners under any of clauses (a) to (d-1) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-B of the said Rules of 1994 is established, the grant of lease cannot be denied on the ground that the same has not been executed within a period of twenty four months from 12th August 2016.

(iii) Appropriate decision in this case for grant of lease shall be taken by the concerned authority of the State Government within a period of three months from today.