AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J.S. Khehar, C.J.—The Petitioner is engaged in extraction of black granite stone. The aforesaid activity has been permitted by the Department of Mines and Geology. On 27.01.2011, eleven blocks of granite stone extracted by the Petitioner were inspected, identified and marked by the Department of Mines and Geology. Only one of the stone blocks is relevant for the present controversy. The aforesaid stone block was identified at serial Number 74. The said stone had a length of 309.00 cms, breadth of 197.00 cms and height of 161.00 cms, and as such, stone block No. 74 measured 9.801 cu.mtrs.
The Petitioner applied for a Mineral Dispatch Permit for the eleven blocks extracted by him. So far as block No. 74 is concerned, Mineral Dispatch Permit bearing No. 4565 was issued to him. It was valid for the period from 11.03.2011 to 13.03.2011. In the Mineral Dispatch Permit the length, breadth, height and volume of the stone in question was also duly recovered. As per permit No. 4565, the same was to be transported in a truck bearing registration No. KA.01-A-9108.
It is the case of the Petitioner that the aforesaid black granite stone identified as block No. 74, during the course of its transit, in vehicle bearing registration No. KA.01-A-9108 was impounded at 1.30 hours, on 11.03.2011, on the Kollagala road near Alagudu village, T. Narasipura Taluk, in Mysore District. In the mahazar prepared on the spot, it was recorded, that the stone was being transported without a Mineral Dispatch Permit. The stone being transported (which had been impounded) was found to be measuring 10.786 cu.mtrs, and as such, it was sought to be concluded, that the said black granite stone was not the one extracted by the Petitioner, which had been identified and marked as block No. 74, by Department of Mines and Geology.
It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that the stone impounded on 11.03.2011 was the same stone, which was identified and marked as block No. 74, by the Department of Mines and Geology. It was also the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that the said black granite stone was being transported under a genuine Mineral Dispatch Permit. In view of the above, it was submitted, that the Petitioner repeatedly visited the offices of the Respondents seeking the release of the stone, as also, the truck, (in which it was transported). However, the pleas raised by the Petitioner were not acceded to by the Respondents, as such, he had no other alternative, but to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition.
During the course of hearing of this case yesterday i.e. on 23.03.2011, there was no dispute between the learned Counsel for the rival parties, that permit No. 4565 appended to the writ petition as Annexure-E was a genuine Mineral Dispatch Permit. In addition to the aforesaid, if it could be ascertained whether the stone earlier identified as block No. 74 was the one which was being transported (and impounded by the Respondents on 11.03.2011), there would be no infirmity insofar as the action of the Petitioner is concerned. The only question therefore, which arose for our determination was, whether the stone which was impounded by the Respondents on 11.03.2011 was actually the same black granite stone, which was identified and marked as block No. 74. If the answer to the aforesaid query is in the affirmative, then there would be nothing wrong in the action of the Petitioner. However, if the answer is in the negative the transport of a different stone, by showing it as the one earlier marked as block No. 74, would certainly be unacceptable.
In the impugned order dated 14.03.2011, placed on the record of this case as Annexure-F, the stone impounded was depicted as measuring 10.786 cu.mtrs. The stone at the time of its marking, measured 9.801 cu.mtrs (309.00 cms. X 197.00 cms. x 161.00 cms. = 9.801 cu.mtrs. In the Mineral Dispatch Permit, the stone impounded was depicted as measuring 9.801 cu.mtrs As against the aforesaid, in the mahazar prepared by the Respondents (while impounding the stone in question] the measurements of the impounded stone was recorded as 10.786 cu.mtrs. Based on the aforesaid measurements of the impounded stone, it was the contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondents, that the stone being transported was not the black granite stone, which was marked and identified as block No. 74, by the Department of Mines and Geology.
The measurements of the impounded stone, at the time when it was impounded, was strenuously contested at the hands of the Petitioner, who was present in Court in person on 23.03.2011. Accordingly, by a motion bench order, the rival parties were directed to re-measure the impounded stone.
Sri. R.G. Kolle, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents states, that on re-measurement, the impounded stone has been found to have the length of 310.00 cms, breadth of 198.00 cms and height of 165.00 cms. Thus viewed, it is apparent, that on re-measurement the impounded stone has been found to have dimensions of 10.128 cu.mtrs (310.00-cms x 198.00 cms x 165.00 cms = 10.128 cu.mtrs.). This leads us to an interesting situation. At the time of impounding the stone, the Respondents measurements affirmed that its dimensions were 10.786 cu.mtrs. The same stone on re-measurement (in furtherance of the directions issued by us) has been found to be of 10.128 cu.mtrs. i.e. the difference of the measurements made by the Respondents themselves is 0.658 cu.mtrs. (10.786 cu.mtrs - 10.128 cu.mtrs. = 0.658 cu.mtrs.). The discrepancy in the dimensions originally marked and the dimensions now determined in respect of the impounded stone is however, lesser. The stone marked as block No. 74 was of 9.801 cu.mtrs. where as the dimensions of the stone now found differ by a mere 0.327 cu.mtrs. (10.128 cu.mtrs. 9.801 cu.mtrs. = 0.327 cu.mtrs).
When the Respondents measured the same stone by themselves, the difference in dimension was 0.658 cu.mtrs. The stone as originally measured, and the present measurement indicates a difference of 0.327 cu.mtrs. If the Respondents on their own could have made a defective measurement up to 0.658 cu.mtrs, it is difficult to understand, why the original measurement could not be likewise defective, wherein the difference was merely 0.327 cu.mtrs (for details refer to the preceding paragraph).
In view of the conclusion drawn by us hereinabove, it is necessary to conclude, that the stone being transported in the truck bearing registration No.KA.01-A-9108, which was impounded on 11.03.2011, was none other than the original black granite stone marked as block No. 74. Since the said stone was transported under a valid permit in the vehicle identified as bearing registration No.KA.01-A-9108, the Petitioner cannot be stated to have committed any illegality in the transportation thereof.
In the sequence of the events noticed herein-above, we are satisfied in concluding, that the Respondents in not releasing the stone of the Petitioner, after he presented the original Mineral Dispatch Permit bearing No. 4565 (issued on 11.03.2011), had retained possession thereof, without appropriate verification and application of mind. Thus viewed, we hereby direct the Respondents to release the impounded truck, as also, the impounded stone, forthwith.
So as to ensure, that such discrepancies do not occur in the future, we direct the Department of Mines and Geology to formulate a foolproof system. Tin such time as the Department of Mines and Geology evolves a foolproof measuring system, we hereby direct the Department of Mines and Geology to colour mark the spots from which the measurements of length, breadth and height are respectively taken when the stone is identified and marked, so that, when the stone is to be re-measured, the measurement is taken from the pre-marked spots. This process, in our view, may obviate the possibility of difference in measurements.
Disposed of in the aforesaid terms.