Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s Thakur Industries, a partnership firm engaged in mining business, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents, which included the State of Karnataka and various forest department officials, not to insist upon the petitioner to obtain a second forest transit pass for transporting iron ore mineral from the railway sliding to the factory premises. The petitioner argued that such insistence was contrary to the law laid down by the court in W.P.No.24072/2005 in respect of M/s Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Limited, which was confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.726/2008. The petitioner also relied on Rule 3 of the Karnataka (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage of Minerals) Rules, 2011. The respondents appeared through the learned Additional Government Advocate and opposed the petition. The court, after hearing the submissions, found that the insistence on a second forest transit pass was indeed contrary to the earlier decisions and the relevant rules. The court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents not to insist on a second forest transit pass for transporting iron ore from the railway sliding to the factory premises.
Headnote
A) Mining Law - Forest Transit Pass - Requirement of Second Pass - Rule 3 of Karnataka (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage of Minerals) Rules, 2011 - The petitioner, a mining firm, challenged the insistence by forest authorities on obtaining a second forest transit pass for transporting iron ore from railway sliding to factory premises. The court held that such insistence was contrary to law laid down in W.P.No.24072/2005 and W.A.No.726/2008, and allowed the petition. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents can insist upon the petitioner to obtain a second forest transit pass for transporting iron ore mineral from the railway sliding to the factory premises, in light of Rule 3 of the Karnataka (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage of Minerals) Rules, 2011 and the decision in W.P.No.24072/2005 and W.A.No.726/2008.
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed. Respondents directed not to insist upon the petitioner to obtain a second forest transit pass for transporting iron ore mineral from the railway sliding to the factory premises.
Law Points
- Interpretation of Rule 3 of Karnataka (Prevention of Illegal Mining
- Transportation and Storage of Minerals) Rules
- 2011
- Requirement of second forest transit pass for transport from railway sliding to factory premises
- Binding nature of coordinate bench decision in W.P.No.24072/2005 and W.A.No.726/2008
Case Details
Writ Petition No. 22698 of 2023 (GM-FOR)
Prasanna B. Varale, Chief Justice, Krishna S Dixit, Justice
Sri. Lakamapurmath Chidanandayya (for petitioner), Sri. S S Mahendra (Government Advocate for respondents)
State of Karnataka and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging insistence on second forest transit pass for transporting iron ore from railway sliding to factory premises.
Remedy Sought
Writ of mandamus directing respondents not to insist on obtaining second forest transit pass for transporting iron ore from railway sliding to factory premises.
Filing Reason
Respondents insisted on petitioner obtaining a second forest transit pass for transporting iron ore from railway sliding to factory premises, which petitioner claimed was contrary to law.
Previous Decisions
The court in W.P.No.24072/2005 and W.A.No.726/2008 had held that no second forest transit pass is required for such transport.
Issues
Whether the respondents can insist on a second forest transit pass for transporting iron ore from railway sliding to factory premises in light of Rule 3 of the Karnataka (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage of Minerals) Rules, 2011 and the decisions in W.P.No.24072/2005 and W.A.No.726/2008.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that insistence on second forest transit pass is contrary to law laid down in W.P.No.24072/2005 and W.A.No.726/2008 and Rule 3 of the Karnataka (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage of Minerals) Rules, 2011.
Respondents opposed the petition through learned Additional Government Advocate.
Ratio Decidendi
The insistence on a second forest transit pass for transporting iron ore from railway sliding to factory premises is contrary to the law laid down in W.P.No.24072/2005 and W.A.No.726/2008 and Rule 3 of the Karnataka (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage of Minerals) Rules, 2011.
Judgment Excerpts
Petitioner -Firm which has been running mining business is knocking at the doors of writ court seeking a 'Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents not to insist upon the Petitioner to obtain the 2nd forest transit pass for transporting the iron ore mineral from the railway sliding to the factory premises...'.
Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, in support of his submission, places reliance on a Co-ordinate Bench decision and the text of Rule 3 of the Karnataka (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage of Minerals) Rules, 2011.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 22698 of 2023 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. After service of notice, respondents appeared. The petition came up for preliminary hearing and was disposed of on 11th January 2024.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
- Karnataka (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage of Minerals) Rules, 2011: Rule 3
