K.R. Tejash & Others vs State Of Karnataka & Others

Ritu Raj Awasthi, CJ

None appears for the petitioners.

This Public Interest Litigation has been filed seeking for the following reliefs:-

a) Call for the records from respondent No.4 regarding establishment of District Stone Crushers Regulation Committee under Section 8 of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 and its proceedings relating to declaration of safer zone at Mandya and Srirangapattana taluks of Mandya District.

b) Also call for the records/report from respondent No.1 in respect of the annual statutory report submitted by the respondent No.4 as a Chairman to the committee under Section 8 in compliance with Section 14 of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 for the year 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 so far as Mandya district is concerned.

c) Issue writ or direction or any other order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to 4 to take necessary action/steps to stop the illegal stone crushing and stone quarrying activities at Ragimuddanahalli village of Mandya Taluk and Kodishettipura village of Srirangapattana Taluk.

d) Issue writ or direction or any other order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.4 or to licensing authority under Section 2[1][f] of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 to cancel all the illegal licenses have been issued to various stone crusher and stone quarrying units at Ragimuddanahalli and Kodishettipura villages of Mandya District.

e) Issue necessary direction to respondent No.1 and 4 to constitute high power committee or any other committee consisting of experts of mines and geology department and revenue department to assess the damage caused to houses, crops and lives of the residents of Regimuddanahalli and Kodishettipura villages of Mandya district due to illegal stone mining and stone crushing activity by exercising power under Section 11 of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011. Further, issue appropriate direction to respondent No.4 to exercise the powers under Section 12 of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 to pay compensation to the victims' suffered with damage by the illegal stone crushing at Ragimuddanahalli and Kodishettipura villages.

f) Issue necessary direction to respondent No.4 to take necessary action to initiate appropriate prosecution proceedings under Section 16 of Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 and Amended Act, 2013 against the crushers who have carrying the stone crushing and mining activity in the absence of valid license or carrying the stone crushing and mining activity by violating the conditions prescribed under the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 and Amended Act, 2013 at Ragimuddanahalli, Kodishettipura and other villages of Mandya District.

g) Also issue appropriate direction or writ to Anti-Corruption Burro or any other Agency of the state constituted for the purposes of implementation of Prevention of Corruption Act to hold necessary enquiry against officials of the Mandya district, who have either directly or indirectly allowed the illegal stone quarrying and Stone crushing activity by violating the prevailing.

h) Issue writ or direction or appropriate order deems fit to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand and to meet the interest of justice.

Petitioners have come out with the allegations of illegal stone quarrying and stone crushing activities at Ragimuddanahalli Village of Mandya Taluk and Kodishettipura village of Srirangapattana Taluk. It is prayed that all the illegal licenses under the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 be cancelled.

Learned Additional Government Advocate on the basis of instructions submits that spot inspection has been carried out on 26.10.2021 and no illegal mining activities have been found and the licensees are not involved in any illegal mining activity. There is specific endorsement that all the quarries are working as per the valid mining licences.

In view of the above, we do not find anything to be adjudicated upon. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

The pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of.