Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, H.T. Manju, owned a stone crusher unit on private patta land in Haralahalli Village, Mandya District. He was granted a licence under Section 3 of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011, valid until 31 March 2024. On 31 December 2019, the 4th respondent (Senior Geologist & Member Secretary) issued a notice directing the petitioner to shift the crushing unit, citing clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act, on the ground that the site was within 100 metres of a major district road. The petitioner challenged this notice by filing a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner argued that since the licence was granted after the declaration of a safer zone, Section 6 could not be invoked to direct shifting. The respondents defended the notice, contending that under Section 6-A(1), no licence can be issued outside the safer zone, and the crusher was located outside it. The court examined the scheme of the Act, particularly Sections 3, 4, 6, and 6-A. It noted that under Section 4(2), upon application for a licence, a joint inspection is conducted, a safer zone is declared, and a certificate of consent is issued. Only then can a licence be granted under Section 3. Section 6(1)(b) empowers the authority to direct shifting of a unit if it is within a prohibited distance, but this provision applies to units that existed before the safer zone declaration. Since the petitioner's licence was granted after the safer zone was declared, the authority could not later invoke Section 6(1)(b) to require shifting. The court quashed the impugned notice and allowed the petition.
Headnote
A) Mines and Minerals - Stone Crusher Licensing - Safer Zone Declaration - Section 6(1)(b) of Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 - The court considered whether a notice to shift a stone crusher unit issued under Section 6(1)(b) was valid when the licence had been granted after the declaration of a safer zone. The court held that once a safer zone is declared and a licence is granted under Section 3, the authority cannot invoke Section 6(1)(b) to direct shifting, as that provision applies to units existing prior to the safer zone declaration. The impugned notice was quashed. (Paras 2-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the licensing authority can direct a stone crusher unit holder to shift the unit under Section 6(1)(b) of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011, after a licence has been granted following the declaration of a safer zone.
Final Decision
The impugned notice dated 31.12.2019 is quashed. The writ petition is allowed.
Law Points
- Once a safer zone is declared and a licence is granted under Section 3 of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act
- 2011
- the licensing authority cannot later direct the licence holder to shift the unit under Section 6(1)(b) of the same Act
- as the provision applies only to existing units before the safer zone declaration.
