Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri. Fakkirappa M. Murgod, was granted a quarrying lease for ordinary sand for five years from 10 August 2017 under the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994. He challenged an order dated 9 June 2020 issued by the Deputy Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Chamarajanagar, which directed that no river bed sand mining be allowed during the rainy season (5 June to 15 October every year) and that the five-year lease period would be inclusive of non-quarrying periods like rainy season, flood, or natural calamities, with no extension or subsequent renewal allowed. The petitioner argued that the lease did not provide for such a prohibition and that there was no specific rule under the 1994 Rules conferring power to restrict sand mining during monsoon. The respondents relied on Rule 8V(1)(d) of the 1994 Rules, which requires consideration of guidelines issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, and the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016, which recommend prohibiting sand mining during monsoon. They also cited Rule 31-R(21) which states that permission for sand quarrying for five years shall be inclusive of non-quarrying periods. The court held that Rule 8V(1)(d) only mandates consideration of environmental guidelines, not automatic imposition of a blanket ban, and that Rule 31-R(21) does not empower the Deputy Director to issue such an order. The impugned order was found to be without statutory authority and was quashed. The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order dated 9 June 2020.
Headnote
A) Mining Law - Sand Mining Lease - Restriction During Monsoon - Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, Rules 8V, 31ZE, 31-R - The court considered whether the Deputy Director had authority to prohibit sand mining during monsoon and to treat lease period inclusive of non-quarrying periods. Held that the impugned order was without statutory backing as Rule 8V(1)(d) only requires consideration of environmental guidelines, not automatic imposition of a blanket ban, and Rule 31-R(21) does not empower such restriction. The order was quashed. (Paras 2-7)
B) Mining Law - Sustainable Sand Mining Guidelines, 2016 - Applicability - The court noted that the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016, while recommending prohibition during monsoon, do not have the force of law unless incorporated into the rules. The impugned order could not be sustained solely on the basis of these guidelines. (Paras 4-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Deputy Director, Department of Mines and Geology, has the power under the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, to impose a blanket ban on river bed sand mining during the monsoon season and to treat the lease period as inclusive of non-quarrying periods without extension.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 9th June 2020 passed by the Deputy Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Chamarajanagar, is quashed.
Law Points
- Statutory interpretation
- Delegated legislation
- Environmental guidelines
- Mining lease conditions
- Sustainable sand mining
Case Details
2021 LawText (KAR) (04) 12
Writ Petition No.2964 of 2021 (GM-MM-S)
Abhay S. Oka, Chief Justice, Suraj Govindaraj, Justice
Sri. Prakash.B.S (for petitioner), Sri. Vikram Huilgol (AGA for respondents)
Sri. Fakkirappa M. Murgod
The State of Karnataka, The Director/Commissioner, Department of Mines and Geology, Deputy Director, Department of Mines & Geology, Deputy Commissioner and Chairman, District Sand Monitoring Committee
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 an order restricting sand mining during monsoon.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of order/notice dated 09.06.2020 issued by the Deputy Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Chamarajanagar.
Filing Reason
The petitioner, a quarrying lease holder, challenged the order that prohibited river bed sand mining during rainy season and treated the lease period inclusive of non-quarrying periods without extension.
Issues
Whether the Deputy Director has the power under the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, to impose a blanket ban on river bed sand mining during the monsoon season.
Whether the lease period can be treated as inclusive of non-quarrying periods like rainy season without extension.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner: The lease does not provide for prohibition on river bed sand mining during monsoon; there is no specific rule under the 1994 Rules conferring power to restrict sand mining during monsoon.
Respondents: Rule 8V(1)(d) requires consideration of guidelines issued by Ministry of Environment and Forest; Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016, prohibit sand mining during monsoon; Rule 31-R(21) provides that permission for five years shall be inclusive of non-quarrying periods.
Ratio Decidendi
The impugned order lacks statutory authority under the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994. Rule 8V(1)(d) only mandates consideration of environmental guidelines, not automatic imposition of a blanket ban on sand mining during monsoon. Rule 31-R(21) does not empower the Deputy Director to issue such an order. Therefore, the order is illegal and unsustainable.
Judgment Excerpts
The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the lease does not provide for prohibition on river bed sand mining activities during the monsoon.
We have carefully considered the submissions. It is not in dispute that the lease granted to the petitioner is under the provisions contained in Chapter IV-B of the said Rules of 1994.
Rule 8V is in Chapter-IIA. Therefore, the provisions of Rule 8V will apply to the lease granted to the petitioner.
However, Clause (d) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8V only provides that the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest will have to be taken into consideration. It does not confer any power on the Deputy Director to impose a blanket ban on sand mining during the monsoon.
The impugned order is, therefore, without any authority of law. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru challenging the order dated 09.06.2020 passed by the Deputy Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Chamarajanagar. The petition was heard and disposed of finally on 12.04.2021.
Acts & Sections
- Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994: Rule 8V, Rule 31ZE, Rule 31-R
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
