- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
M/S SRI NANDI MINING CO PVT LTD v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22NDDAY OF JULY 2015
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR.SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA WRIT PETITION NO.8329/2012(GM-MM-S)
BETWEEN
M/S. SRI NANDI MINING CO. PVT. LTD., DOOR NO. 125/B, 14TH WARD L B COLONY, SANDUR-583119
BELLARY DISTRICT
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
B RUDRAGOUDA, 36 YEARS
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI K B SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001
2. THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY
NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE-560001
3. THE SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF STEEL & MINES
UNION OF INDIA
SHASTRI BHAVAN
NEW DELHI-110001
4. M/S. NATIONAL MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., NO.10-3-311/A
2
CASTLE HILL, MASAB TANK
HYDERABAD-500028
REP BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI Y H VIJAYAKUMAR, AGA FOR R-1 TO 3; SRI D R RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH ANNEXURE-R PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.317 AML
2008 DATED 10.01.2012 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AND
ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner impugns the decision of the Director of Mines and Geology dated January 7, 2012, in Application No.317 AML 2008, regarding grant of mining lease for iron ore and manganese in Sandur taluk, Bellary district.
2. Mr.D.R.Ravishankar, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.4, takes a preliminary objection. He submits that under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, a revision is provided against such order before the Central government.
3. The Supreme Court of India, in a similar situation, in the case of STATE OF GOA AND OTHERS versus A.H.JAFFAR
3
AND SONS reported in AIR 1995 SC 333, held that when a provision for revision has been provided under the statute, it was proper to approach the Central government and not to approach the High Court in the constitutional writ jurisdiction.
4. We, therefore, dismiss the writ petition without entering into the merits, but record that this order of dismissal shall not prevent the petitioner to approach the revisional authority in accordance with law.
5. We make no order as to costs. Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
bkv
Alert