Marwin Govias vs Deputy Director Mines & Geology Department 1 St Floor, Jugul Towers Mallikatte Mangaluru � 575 002 & Others

Ritu Raj Awasthi, CJ

Since a simple question of law is involved, with the consent of the parties, we propose to decide the writ petition, without calling for the statement of objections.

Notice for the respondents shall be accepted by learned Additional Government Advocate.

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned notices dated 11.11.2021 and 20.12.2021 issued by respondent No.1 restraining the petitioner from carrying out the quarry activities on the lease land and withdrawing no objection.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the quarry lease has been issued to Marwin Govias in land bearing Sy.No.121/2P1 measuring 1 acre of Kavalpadoor Village, Bantwala Taluk for a period of 20 years by order dated 24.05.2016. It is submitted that without issuing any show cause notice or providing any opportunity to the petitioner, the concerned authority has acted in most arbitrary and illegal manner and has issued the impugned notices dated 11.11.2021 and 20.12.2021 to stop the work of quarrying and withdrawing the no objection issued in favour of the petitioner.

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner has already submitted his reply dated 24.12.2021 to the impugned show cause notice dated 20.12.2021 and the decision is still pending. It is submitted that no cause of action has accrued to the petitioner at this stage.

We have considered the submissions and gone through the record.

The impugned notices dated 11.11.2021 and 20.12.2021 goes to show that the quarrying activities have been stopped and the no objection issued in favour of the petitioner has been withdrawn. It is not denied by the respondents that prior to issuing of the impugned notice dated 11.11.2021, the petitioner was not provided any opportunity.

We are of the considered view that once the lease was granted in favour of the petitioner, the civil rights had accrued in his favour and as such, prior to restraining the petitioner from carrying the quarry activities, an opportunity was required to be given. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the impugned orders are not sustainable. The impugned notice dated 11.11.2021 is quashed with liberty to the respondents to pass a fresh order after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. Insofar as the impugned notice dated 20.12.2021 is concerned, the respondents may pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, however, till any order is passed, the respondents shall not interfere in the quarrying activities of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.