M/S DASHARATHARAMESHWARA STONE CRUSHER AND M SAND vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
WP No. 8309 of 2026
TH
RESERVED ON 27 AUGUST 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO.8309 OF 2026 (GM-MM_S)
BETWEEN:
M/S DASHARATHARAMESHWARA
STONE CRUSHER & M-SAND
(PROPRIETARY CONCERN)
HAVING BUSINESS UNIT AT SY. NO.93//,
BARAKA VILLAGE KORATEGERE TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 106
ALSO HAVING OFFICE AT SITE NO. A-4,
WARD NO.2 KATHA NO.14/A4/2747,
PID NO.62519 SIRA GATE,
NAGANNANAPALYA
TUMKURU - 572 106
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
MR. MANJUNATH.S
S/O. SRI. SIDDARAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MAHENDRA S.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY (MINES),
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES,
ST
VIKAS SOUDHA, 1 FLOOR,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
Digitally signed by
MAHALAKSHMI B M
Location: High Court
of Karnataka
- 2 -
WP No. 8309 of 2026
2. THE DISTRICT STONE CRUSHERS LICENSING
AND REGULATION AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 106.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
CHAIRMAN OF DISTRICT
STONE CRUSHERS LICENSING AND
REGULATION AUTHORITY,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 101.
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY TUMAKURU
AND MEMBER SECRETARY DISTRICT
STONE CRUSHERS LICENSING AND
REGULATION AUTHORITY
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 101.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS DATED
23.02.2026 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT STONE CRUSHERS
LICENSING AND REGULATION AUTHORITY CANCELLING THE
CERTIFICATE ISSUED IN FORM-B1 AND REFUSING TO GRANT
LICENSE IN FORM-C, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURES-A AND B AND
ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
ORDERS WAS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU ,CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
- 3 -
WP No. 8309 of 2026
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA )
1. The petitioner, M/s. Dasharatharameshwara Stone Crusher
and M-Sand [ M/s. DSC ], has called in question the order dated
23.02.2026 passed by respondent No.2-the District Stone Crushers
Licensing and Regulation Authority, Tumakuru District, whereby the
Certificate of Compliance issued in Form-B1 in favour of M/s. DSC
was cancelled and its request for grant of licence in Form-C was
declined. M/s. DSC has also sought a writ of mandamus directing
the respondents to issue a stone crusher licence in Form-C in
respect of the crusher unit established over an extent of 2 acres in
Sy.No.93 of Baraka Village, Channarayana Durga Hobli,
Koratagere Taluk, Tumakuru District [ the Schedule Property ], in
accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Regulation of
Stone Crushers Act, 2011 [ the Act ] and the Rules framed
thereunder.
Prefatory facts
2. M/s. DSC submitted an application in Form-A on 05.03.2022
seeking grant of licence for establishment of a stone crusher unit in
the schedule property. Upon receipt of the application, the Member
Secretary of the Licensing Authority addressed a communication to
- 4 -
WP No. 8309 of 2026
the Assistant Commissioner, requesting that a joint spot inspection
of the proposed location be conducted by the competent officers.
3. Accordingly, a joint inspection was conducted on 25.08.2022
by the officers of the concerned departments. The inspecting
authorities verified the location with reference to the requirements
prescribed under the Act and Rules framed thereunder and
submitted a report recommending the proposed location be
declared as a "safer zone". Respondent No.2 considered the report
in its meeting held on 24.11.2022 and resolved to declare the
schedule property as a safer zone. Pursuant thereto, a Gazette
Notification dated 28.11.2022 was issued, declaring the schedule
property as a safer zone. Thereafter, M/s. DSC was issued a
Certificate of Compliance in Form-B1 on 14.12.2022.
4. M/s. DSC obtained Consent for Establishment [ CFE ] from
the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board [ the KSPCB ] on
10.02.2023. After acting upon the statutory approvals so obtained,
M/s. DSC proceeded to establish the crusher unit and claims to
have invested several crores of rupees towards purchase of
machinery and construction of the requisite infrastructure.
M/s. DSC subsequently obtained Consent for Operation [ CFO ]
from the KSPCB.
- 5 -
WP No. 8309 of 2026
5. While matters stood thus, complaints came to be submitted
by certain neighbouring landowners regarding the proposed
operation of the crusher unit. This resulted in further spot
inspections. According to M/s. DSC, during the inspection
conducted on 16.04.2025, the neighbouring landowners, who were
present expressed that they had no objection to the establishment
and operation of the crusher unit. Thereafter, on 25.04.2025,
another survey was conducted and the distance between the
crusher unit and the surrounding lands were measured. M/s. DSC
further submitted a representation seeking issuance of license in
Form-C. In the meanwhile, an organization by the name of Bheem
Army submitted a complaint opposing grant of the crusher licence.
The said organization subsequently withdrew its complaint and
clarified that its earlier complaint had been submitted under a
misconception and that it had no objection to grant of Form-C.
Certain villagers also addressed communications to the authorities
stating that they had no objection to the operation of the crusher
unit.
6. M/s. DSC's representation for issuance of Form-C remained
unattended. Consequently, the petitioner approached this Court in
W.P.No.23696/2025 [GM-MM-S]. This Court, by order dated
- 6 -
WP No. 8309 of 2026
28.11.2025, disposed of the writ petition directing the competent
authority to consider the M/s. DSC's representations dated
16.05.2025 and 26.06.2025 as expeditiously as possible,
preferably within four weeks. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction,
respondent No.2 held a meeting on 02.12.2025 and resolved to
have the site inspected afresh. Accordingly, a joint inspection was
conducted on 16.12.2025, by the Assistant Commissioner along
with the Deputy Director and Tahsildar, Koratagere. The joint
inspection culminated in a report dated 22.12.2025, recorded that
there was no impediment to the grant of Form-C licence to the M/s.
DSC.
7. M/s. DSC once again sought issuance of Form-C.
Respondent No.2, however, received further objections from
certain villagers and conducted a hearing on 20.02.2026.
Thereafter, by the impugned proceedings dated 23.02.2026,
respondent No.2, invoking Section 10 of the Act, cancelled the
Form-B1 issued to M/s DSC and declined to grant Form-C.
Submissions
8. The learned counsel for M/s. DSC would primarily contend
three grounds. Firstly, that the impugned proceedings of
- 7 -
WP No. 8309 of 2026
respondent No.2 are without jurisdiction and contrary to the
statutory scheme of the Act and the Rules. It is contended that
respondent No.2, after obtaining a joint inspection report from the
competent authorities, had itself determined that the proposed
location satisfied the statutory requirements, declared it as a "safer
zone" through a Gazette Notification and thereafter issued
Certificate of Compliance in Form-B1. Once statutory exercise had
been completed, the determination regarding the suitability of the
location stood concluded and the Licensing Authority could not,
merely upon receipt of subsequent complaints, reopen the
declaration of the safer zone. The statutory scheme contemplates
distinct stages. A person desirous of establishing a stone crusher is
required to make prescribed application; the proposed location is
thereafter subjected to joint inspection by the specified competent
officers to ascertain its compliance with Section 6 of the Act; and
upon the location satisfying the prescribed requirements, the
authority proceeds with further statutory steps, including issuance
of Certificate of Compliance and consideration of the application for
licence.
9. Secondly, it is submitted that joint inspections were
conducted on three occasions. It is contended that, subsequent to
- 8 -
WP No. 8309 of 2026
the complaints and pursuant to the earlier direction of this Court,
the authority once again caused a fresh joint inspection on
16.12.2025, which again resulted in the report dated 22.12.2025
recommending grant of Form-C. Thus, there was no technical or
statutory material before respondent No.2 to establish that the site
had ceased to satisfy the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.
10. Thirdly, it is contended that invocation of Section 10 of the
Act is for cancellation of licence, whereas admittedly no licence in
Form-C had yet been issued to M/s. DSC. What had been issued
was Form-B1, namely, the Certificate of Compliance. Therefore,
Section 10 could not have been invoked to cancel Form-B1 or to
reopen the declaration of safer zone.
11. The learned counsel for the M/s. DSC also contends that
there is a violation of principles of natural justice. Reliance is
placed upon the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
1
H. T. Manju v. State of Karnataka and Others , to contend that
statutory scheme requires joint inspection of the location for
determination as to whether it falls within the prescribed safer zone
and that, once the statutory process of determination has been
completed, the State cannot subsequently fall back upon Section 6
1
W.P.No.734/2020 decided on 17.01.2020
- 9 -
WP No. 8309 of 2026
of the Act and reopen the suitability of the very same location in the
absence of statutory authority. Further reliance is placed on
2
M/s. Iqra Granite Crusher v. State of Karnataka and Others , to
contend that, once the proposed location satisfies the requirements
of a safer zone and the process culminates in a favourable
determination following by issuance of Form-B1 and the requisite
consent from the KSPCB, the authority cannot arbitrarily reopen
the concluded determination of suitability without any material
change.
12. Per contra , learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for the State does not dispute M/s. DSC's application,
the joint inspection, declaration of the land as a safer zone,
issuance of Form-B1 or the fact that M/s. DSC obtained CFE and
CFO from the KSPCB. However, it is contended that several
complaints were received opposing grant of Form-C and,
accordingly, the complaints were heard in the presence of the
Tahsildar, Revenue Inspector, Village Administrative Officer and all
other concerned officers. The villagers expressed grievances
relating, inter alia , to dust pollution affecting agriculture crops,
scarcity and possible contamination of water, cattle grazing, health
2
W.P.No.5144/2020 decided on 14.07.2020
- 10 -
WP No. 8309 of 2026
concerns, noise pollution and the possible impact upon the
neighbouring forest and wildlife.
13. It is submitted that, having regard to the several complaints
concerning the area in which the crusher unit was proposed and
objections raised at the hearing, respondent No.2 was justified in
taking action under Section 10 of the Act. Considering the public
interest, interest of farmers, welfare of livestock and prevention of
contamination of drinking water sources, the authority resolved to
cancel the safer zone declaration/Form-B1 and refuse Form-C. It is
submitted that no vested right accrued to M/s. DSC merely by
issuance of Form-B1. Form-B1, only facilitates the applicant in
obtaining the requisite consent and expressly does not constitute a
licence to commence operation of a stone crusher. Since the
licence contemplated in Form-C under the Rules had admittedly
not been granted, M/s. DSC cannot seek issuance of Form-C as a
matter of right. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the decision
of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Municipal
3
Corporation, Shimla v. Prem Lata , for the proposition that where
a statute provides for creation of a right through several stages, no
vested right comes into existence unless and until all conditions
3
(2007) 11 SCC 40
- 11 -
WP No. 8309 of 2026
precedent prescribed by the statute are satisfied. Further reliance
4
is also placed on State of Tamil Nadu v. M/s Hind Stone , to
contend that an applicant does not acquire a vested right to grant
or renewal of a licence or lease merely by filing an application, nor
an applicant insists that an application be dealt with under a
particular provision merely because such provision was in force on
the date of application.
Reasons and conclusions
14. Before adverting to the legality of the impugned proceedings,
it is necessary to consider the statutory scheme under the
Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 and Rules
framed thereunder. The object of the enactment is to regulate the
business of stone crushing in the State by prescribing the
conditions subject to which stone crushers may be established and
operated, including the identification of suitable locations, grant and
renewal of licences and regulation of their operations. The scheme
of the enactment therefore contemplates that suitability of the
location is first required to be examined by the competent
authorities and only thereafter can an applicant proceed to the
further stages culminating in the grant of a licence in Form-C.
4
AIR 1981 SC 711
- 12 -
WP No. 8309 of 2026
15. Undisputed facts are that M/s. DSC applied for establishment
of the crusher unit by filing an application in Form-A seeking grant
of licence; a joint inspection was conducted on 25.08.2022; the
inspecting authorities found the location to satisfy the requirements
contemplated under Section 6(1) of the Act; respondent No.2
resolved on 24.11.2022 to approve the location as a safer zone;
the Gazette Notification followed and Form-B1 was issued on
14.12.2022. It is also not in dispute that M/s. DSC obtained
requisite consent from the KSPCB.
16. The defence set out by the State is that, despite the earlier
statutory steps, complaints were subsequently received from the
villagers and farmers concerning the likely effect of the crushers
unit upon agricultural lands, crops, water sources, cattle and
surrounding environment. According to the State, the objections
justified reconsideration of the matter in public interest. It is also the
stand of the State that Form-B1 does not create any vested right in
favour of M/s. DSC and merely enables the applicant to obtain
necessary consents required before a licence in Form-C can be
issued.
- 13 -
WP No. 8309 of 2026
17. Section 6 of the Act reads as under:
" 6. Conditions for declaring Safer Zone.- The
declaration of safer zone for stone crushers under this Act,
shall be subject to the following conditions, namely.
(1) The safer zone shall not be located within.-
(a) Two hundred meter from the limits of the National
Highways or State Highways;
(b) One hundred meter from the limits of major district
roads and fifty meter from the limits of other roads;
(c) Five hundred meter from revenue village, temples,
schools;
(d) The boundary of Municipal Corporations, City
Municipal Corporation, Town Municipal Council.
(2) Each stone crusher unit shall be located in a
minimum area of one acre of land.
(3) The Licensing Authority shall, within a period
of three months from the date of receiving application, verify
the above conditions through joint inspection from the
concerned Officers of Mines and Geology, Revenue, Forest
Department and Environmental Officer, Karnataka State
Pollution Control Board and declare safer zone within their
jurisdiction by notification, specifying the area and its limits:
Provided that the Licensing Authority shall declare
the safer zone for existing stone crusher within one month
in any case not later than three months from the date of
receipt of application.
Explanation .-For the purpose of this Act, any
habitation, school, temples or road coming up subsequent
to declaration of safer zone shall not affect the operation or
continuance of such declaration and shall not affect any
extension of licence under Section 5. "
18. The provision prescribes the conditions governing the
location of stone crusher units and requirements for the safer zone.
- 14 -
WP No. 8309 of 2026
Upon receipt of an application, the proposed site is required to be
subjected to a joint inspection by the competent authorities to
ascertain whether location satisfies the statutory parameters
prescribed under the Act. The determination as to whether a
particular location is suitable as a safer zone is therefore arrived at
upon statutory inspection by the designated authorities.
19. Once the proposed location is found to conform to the
requirements under Section 6 of the Act, the Licensing Authority
proceeds to declare/notify the location as a safer zone and the
applicant is issued the prescribed Certificate of Compliance in
Form-B1. If, on the other hand, the proposed location does not
satisfy the statutory requirements, the application is liable to be
rejected.
20. This statutory scheme was noticed by this Court in H.T.
Manju ( supra ), wherein it was held at paragraph Nos.5 and 6 as
under:
" 5. We have carefully considered the submissions.
Under sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the said Act of
2011, once an application for grant or renewal of the
licence under Section 3 of the said Act of 2011 is
made, a joint inspection of the location of the crusher
unit is required to be made. Thereafter, the safer zone
is to be declared and the Licensing Authority has to
issue a certificate of consent of safer zone to the
applicant. If the area proposed in the application is not
- 15 -
WP No. 8309 of 2026
declared as a safer zone, the Licensing Authority is
enjoined to reject the application. In the present case,
after declaration of the safer zone, the application has
been granted and the licence has been issued.
Therefore, now the State cannot fall back on the
provisions of Section 6 of the said Act of 2011 which
lays down the manner in which the safer zone for the
stone crusher units can be declared.
6. The learned Government Advocate relies on
clause (vi) of sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the said
Act of 2011. Firstly, clause (vi) confers power to
suspend or cancel the licence. It is not the power to
direct shifting of the crusher unit. Moreover, the said
power can be exercised only in case of non-compliance
of the conditions of the licence. In the impugned order,
it is not the allegation made by the State Government
that there is a non-compliance of the terms and
conditions of the licence. Perhaps if according to the
respondents, the licence granted to the petitioner is not
in accordance with the provisions of the said Act of
2011 or Rules framed thereunder, possibly the power
under Section 10 of the said Act of 2011 can be
invoked for cancellation of the licence but, that also
after giving an opportunity of being heard to the
licensee. "
21. In H.T. Manju ( supra ), this Court observed, in substance,
that the proposed location is required to undergo joint inspection;
thereafter, the safer zone is to be declared and the Licensing
Authority has to issue the appropriate certificate of consent of safer
zone to the applicant. Where the area proposed in the application
does not fall within the declared safer zone, the Licensing Authority
is required to reject the application. Thus, the determination of the
- 16 -
WP No. 8309 of 2026
safer zone is a statutory stage anterior to the grant of the
operational licence.
22. The explanation to Section 6 clearly states that any
habitation, school, temples or road coming up subsequent to
declaration of a safer zone shall not affect the operation or
continuance of such declaration and shall not affect any extension
of licence under Section 5 of the Act. Thus, once the statutory
requirements are fulfilled, the process proceeds to the subsequent
stage contemplated under the Act and Rules.
23. It is in that backdrop that invocation of Section 10 of the Act
requires examination. Section 10 of the Act deals with the
cancellation of licence issued under the Act. It contemplates
cancellation where a licence had not been granted in accordance
with the provisions of the Act. At this stage, it would be appropriate
to refer to the notification published for declaration of the unit as a
crusher safe zone, translated copy of the said notification extracted
as below:
" KARNATAKA GAZETTE
Published Officially
Volume 157 Bengaluru, Monday,
05 December 2022
(Margashira 14, Shaka
Year 1944)
Issue 244
- 17 -
WP No. 8309 of 2026
PART - III
Notifications relating to Heads of Government
Departments and Local Authorities
Government of Karnataka
No: DMG/DD/JK/NOTIFICATION/2022-23
Office of the Deputy Commissioner
Tumakuru District, Tumakuru
Date: 28.11.2022
NOTIFICATION
Subject : Declaration of the applied area intended for
establishment of a stone crusher unit as a Crusher Safe
Zone.
Reference : Proceedings of the meeting of the District Stone
Crushing Units Regulation Authority Committee dated
24.11.2022.
Under the provisions of the Karnataka Regulation of
Stone Crushers Act, 2011 and the Amendment Acts of 2013
and 2020, stone crushing units shall be established only
within the Safe Zones. Accordingly, the following applied
areas in Tumakuru District, having satisfied the conditions
prescribed under Section 6(1) of the said Act, and upon joint
inspection conducted under Section 6(3) of the Karnataka
Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 as amended in
2013, were placed before the meeting of the District Stone
Crushing Units Regulation Authority held on 24.11.2022.
Based on the approval of the said meeting, the following
applied areas are hereby declared as Crusher Safe Zones.
Sl. Taluk Name of Survey Nature
No. Village No. of Land
Extent
01 Koratagere Baraka 93// Patta 2-00
02 Sira Kallahalli 83 Gomala 2-00
Deputy Commissioner & Chairman
District Stone Crushers Licencing & Regulation authority
Tumakuru District, Tumakuru "
- 18 -
WP No. 8309 of 2026
24. Section 10 of the Act reads as under:
" 10. Cancellation of license.- The license issued
under this Act may be cancelled suo motu for the reasons to
be recorded in writing by the Licensing Authority or on
considering any complaint or application filed by any person
to the effect that the license granted is not in accordance
with the provisions of this Act and rules or that the licensee
has violated the conditions of license:
Provided that no order of canceling the license shall
be made under this section without giving an opportunity of
being heard to the licensee or a person aggrieved by such
cancellation. "
25. The above provision deals with the cancellation of licence
issued under the Act. It contemplates cancellation where the
licence has not been granted in accordance with the provisions of
the Act and Rules or where the licence holder has violated the
terms and conditions of the licence, subject to affording the
licensee an opportunity of hearing. In the present case, admittedly,
no licence in Form-C has been issued to M/s. DSC. M/s. DSC
possessed Form-B1, namely, the Certificate of Compliance,
consequent upon the declaration of the location as a safer zone.
The respondents contend that Form-B1 does not confer any vested
right and does not authorise M/s. DSC to operate the crusher. If
that is the position, there is an apparent incongruity in the
impugned action. On the one hand, the respondents contend that
Form-B1 is not a licence. On the other hand, they invoke Section
- 19 -
WP No. 8309 of 2026
10 of the Act, which is a provision for cancellation of licence, to
cancel Form-B1. The impugned proceedings do not satisfactorily
explain how the power specifically conferred for cancellation of a
licence could be employed to cancel a Certificate of Compliance
when the Form-C licence had yet to come into existence.
26. Yet another significant feature cannot be overlooked. This is
not a case where suitability of M/s. DSC's site was examined only
once in 2022 and all subsequent complaints were ignored. On the
contrary, the record demonstrates that the proposed location was
subjected to three distinct rounds of scrutiny and inspection. First,
pursuant to M/s. DSC's application, a joint inspection was
conducted on 25.08.2022 by the competent authorities. The site
was formed to satisfy the statutory parameters on the strength of
that report. The authority resolved on 24.11.2022 to declare the
location as a safer zone, followed by Gazette Notification and
issuance of Form-B1 on 14.12.2022.
27. Second, after complaints were received from neighbouring
landowners, the authorities again undertook scrutiny of the location
during April 2025. A spot inspection was conducted on 16.04.2025,
the site and surrounding lands were thereafter surveyed on
25.04.2025, including the relevant distances. According to
- 20 -
WP No. 8309 of 2026
M/s. DSC, neighbouring landowners present during the inspection
expressed that they had no objections to the crusher unit. The
record also indicates that certain objections did not subsequently
survive. The complaint submitted by Bheem Army was withdrawn,
stating that the complaint had been made under a misconception
and that it had no objection to grant of Form-C. Certain villagers
also submitted communication expressing that they had no
objection to the operation of the crusher unit.
28. Third, after M/s. DSC, approached this Court in
W.P.No.23696/2025, this Court directed the concerned authorities
to consider its representations. Respondent No.2 itself resolved on
02.12.2025 to cause yet another fresh inspection. Accordingly, a
joint inspection was conducted on 16.12.2025 by the competent
authorities. The relevant portion is extracted as below:
"In compliance with the said order, the applicant has
submitted that crusher machinery has already been
installed in 2-00 acres in Survey No.93 of Baraka Village
after obtaining Form-B1 and CFE, and that the machinery
was installed with a loan obtained from Canara Bank on
26.12.2024, and due to delay in issuance of Form-C licence
the applicant is facing difficulty in repayment of bank loan.
Further, after obtaining CFO from the Environmental
Department on 16.04.2025, the applicant submitted an
application on 02.05.2025 to the Deputy Director,
Department of Mines and Geology, Tumakuru requesting
issuance of Form-C licence, and subsequently submitted a
representation dated 04.12.2025 to the Deputy
Commissioner requesting issuance of Form-C.
- 21 -
WP No. 8309 of 2026
Since the area satisfies the conditions prescribed
under Section 6(1) of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone
Crushers Act, 2011, and since the Authority has already
declared the area as a crusher safe zone and issued Form-
B1, and as the land conversion order and environmental
consent have been obtained, and as the crusher unit has
been established in accordance with the latitude and
longitude coordinates, it is opined that Form-C licence may
be granted to the applicant."
29. The inspection report noted that the site satisfied the
requirements under Section 6(1) of the Act, the safer zone and
Form-B1 were already in existence and that the unit was situated at
the prescribed coordinates. The inspection culminated in a report
dated 22.12.2025, which reads as under:
" With reference to the above subject and the letter
cited above, a direction was received from your office to
inspect the site where Sri Dasharatharameshwara Stone
Crusher & M-Sand has established the crusher unit in
Survey No. 93//measuring 2-00 acres of patta land in
Baraka Village, Koratagere Taluk, and to submit a report
regarding the present status within 7 days, so that the same
may be placed before the forthcoming meeting of the
District Stone Crushing Units Licensing and Regulation
Authority. Accordingly, in connection with the request made
on 16-12-2025, a joint site inspection was conducted along
with the Deputy Director, Department of Mines and
Geology, Tumakuru, and the Tahsildar, Koratagere. During
the inspection it was observed that machinery and
equipment required for establishing the crusher unit have
been installed in the said 2-00 acres of patta land in Survey
No. 93// of Baraka Village, Koratagere Taluk, however no
operational activities have commenced. Since the said land
satisfies the conditions prescribed under Section 6(1) of the
Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011, and as
the Authority has already declared the area as a Crusher
Safe Zone and issued Form-B1, and as the land conversion
order and consent from the Environmental Department have
been submitted, and as the crusher unit has been
- 22 -
WP No. 8309 of 2026
established according to the latitude and longitude
coordinates, it is possible to grant Form-C licence to the
applicant. Accordingly, the joint site inspection note along
with GPS photographs is submitted herewith for your
information and necessary action. "
30. Thus, the request was not accepted mechanically. It was
subjected to scrutiny on three separate occasions, including after
the objections of the villagers had arisen. The latest inspection was
in December 2025, following the earlier litigation, and resulted in a
positive recommendation for the issuance of Form-C.
31. Even thereafter, respondent No.2 did not proceed without
hearing the objectors. The villagers and the farmers were heard on
20.02.2026. Their grievances regarding dust pollution, damage to
crops, grazing of cattle, water scarcity, possible contamination of
water sources, borewells, noise pollution and disturbance to wildlife
were taken note of in detail. The complaints and the apprehensions
of the villagers were undoubtedly matters which the authorities
were entitled and indeed obliged to consider. However, the
authorities have assigned no reason for rejecting the earlier three
technical determinations or for disregarding the statutory inspection
reports. There is no subsequent expert or technical report referred
to in the impugned order finding that the schedule property violated
- 23 -
WP No. 8309 of 2026
any of the particular conditions under Section 6 of the Act or that
any statutory distances earlier verified was incorrect.
32. The impugned order only records that, considering the public
interest, the interest of farmers, the welfare of livestock and
prevention of contamination of drinking water, the meeting resolved
to cancel the notification dated 05.12.2022, declaring the schedule
property as a safer zone for establishment of crusher unit and also
cancel Form-B1 issued on 14.12.2022 by the Regulatory Authority.
The impugned order is totally bereft of reasons identifying any
violation of a particular condition. The impugned order neither holds
that joint inspection report was erroneous nor does it disapproves
the technical findings recorded therein. It also does not identify any
subsequent change in the physical location of the crusher unit
which rendered the site ineligible under Section 6 of the Act.
33. The learned AGA has sought to overcome this difficulty by
placing reliance upon Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897
[ the Act, 1897 ]. It is submitted that Section 21 incorporates the
principle that a power to issue a notification includes the power, in
the like manner and subject to the like conditions, to add to,
amend, vary or rescind any notification. It is therefore contended
that the authority which possessed the power to issue notification
- 24 -
WP No. 8309 of 2026
declaring the location as a safer zone necessarily possessed the
power to rescind that notification. Reliance is placed upon decision
of the Supreme Court in the case of Shree Sidhbali Steels
5
Limited And Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh And Others . The
Supreme Court therein held that Sections 14 and 21 of the Act,
1897, applied to the statutory power under consideration and that
the power to issue a notification and granting a rebate carried with
it the power to curtail, modify or withdraw the rebate. The Supreme
Court held that the power to add to, amend, vary or rescind a
notification is inherent in the power to issue a notification and need
not be invariably separate and expressly conferred. The Supreme
Court further held that a rebate or concession was a privilege and
not an indefeasible right and that the changed circumstances could
justify its withdrawal. It also overruled the view that an express
statutory provision for revocation was indispensable before an
earlier notification could be modified or rescinded.
34. There can be no dispute regarding the proposition laid down
in Sidhbali Steels Limited ( supra ). Section 21 is a rule of
construction and, ordinarily, a statutory power to issue a notification
includes the power to amend, vary or rescind the same. But the
5
(2011) 3 SCC 193
- 25 -
WP No. 8309 of 2026
existence of such power and legality of its exercise are distinct
questions. Section 21 of the Act, 1897, does not operate
independently of or in derogation of an parent statute. The power to
rescind must take its colour from the statutory power pursuant to
which the original notification was issued. In Sidhbali Steels
Limited ( supra ), the notification in question concerned a statutory
rebate, a concession, which the competent authority was itself
empowered to grant, modify or withdraw under the governing
enactment.
35. The situation here is different. The declaration of a safer
zone is not merely a fiscal concession or a bounty. It is a result of a
statutory determination regarding suitability of a physical location,
arrived at upon a joint inspection under the scheme of Section 6 of
the Act. Therefore, even assuming that Section 21 of the Act, 1897,
enables a competent authority to rescind a notification declaring a
safer zone in an appropriate case, such a rescission must still be
consistent with the scheme of Section 6 of the Act and must be
based upon some material germane to the statutory parameters
concerning the suitability of location. Such material is totally absent
in the impugned order. The site was declared as a safer zone upon
technical satisfaction of specified locational parameters. Its
- 26 -
WP No. 8309 of 2026
rescission on the ground that it no longer satisfies those
parameters must necessarily rest upon material demonstrating
such non-compliance. As stated above, there is no such material in
the present case. On the contrary, the latest technical exercise in
favour of M/s. DSC indicates that a joint inspection was conducted
on 16.12.2025 and that the report dated 22.12.2025 specifically
recommended grant of Form-C. The impugned order does not
record any subsequent inspection contradicting those findings.
Therefore, the judgment in Sidhbali Steels Limited ( supra ) does
not assist the State.
36. The proposition of law relied by the State in Commissioner
of Municipal Corporation, Shimla and M/s Hind Stone to
contend that no vested right arises merely because an applicant
has reached one intermediate stage of the statutory process, is not
in dispute. However, the issue in the present case is not founded
merely on the plea of vested right. It arises from the circumstance
that the statutory determination concerning the suitability of the
location had repeatedly been in the favour of M/s. DSC. The joint
inspections recommended issuance of Form-C. Yet respondent
No.2, Licensing Authority, invoked Section 10 of the Act, which
deals with cancellation of a licence, to cancel Form-B1 without
- 27 -
WP No. 8309 of 2026
recording any finding that the site violated Section 6 of the Act.
Therefore, the decisions relied upon by the State do not lend any
assistance to its case.
37. M/s. DSC's application has been pending since March 2022.
The location was subjected to first inspection in August 2022 and
was thereafter declared as a safer zone. Complaints were received
thereafter, resulting in a second round of inspection and survey.
The matter was subsequently carried before this Court and,
pursuant to the said order passed by respondent No.2, itself
ordered a third round of joint inspection in December 2025. That
exercise resulted in a categorical recommendation that there is no
impediment to the grant of Form-C.
38. We are of the considered view that the impugned
proceedings dated 23.02.2026 cannot be sustained. The
consequential direction to remove the crusher unit also cannot
survive.
39. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The
impugned order dated 23.02.2026 passed by respondent No.2, is
hereby quashed. Respondent No.2 is directed to process and issue
the licence in Form-C in favour of M/s. DSC in accordance with the
- 28 -
WP No. 8309 of 2026
Act and Rules framed thereunder, subject only to compliance with
any remaining statutory requirement, if any. Such exercise shall be
completed within four weeks from date.
40. However, it is clarified that this order would not preclude the
competent authorities, including the KSPCB, from taking any action
in accordance with law if, after commencement of the operations,
M/s. DSC violates any condition of licence, consent, environmental
requirement or any other statutory obligation.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(K.S. HEMALEKHA)
JUDGE
AT