Karnataka High Court: While passing the order in a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution praying to direct the respondents to grant quarrying lease, a two-Judge Bench of Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, C.J. and P.S. Dinesh Kumar, J. directed the authorities concerned to consider the application of the petitioner.
The writ petitioner was aggrieved as the application for grant of quarrying lease was not considered by the authorities, on the presumption that the revenue and the forest clearances were not given before the cut-off date mentioned in the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2016, and therefore, the petitioner was ineligible.
The Court after listening to both the parties held that it was the responsibility of the authorities to forward the forest and the revenue clearances. The said clearances came late because of delay and laches on the part of the authorities. The writ petitioner could not be allowed to suffer on the part of the authorities. The Court allowed the petition and directed the authorities to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of quarrying lease, considering the forest and revenue clearances already received by them. [Fathima Mary v. State of Karnataka, Writ Petition No. 34119 of 2017 (GM-MM-S), dated July 28, 2017]