Karnataka HC: Stone-crusher safe-zone approval cannot be cancelled on complaints alone without technical evidence

The petitioner applied in March 2022 to establish a stone-crusher unit. Following a joint inspection, the site was declared a safer zone by Gazette notification, and a Certificate of Compliance in Form-B1 was issued.

The petitioner obtained the requisite consents from the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and established the unit. After objections from villagers, further inspections were conducted, including a joint inspection in December 2025 that recommended granting a Form-C licence.

On 23 February 2026, the District Stone Crushers Licensing and Regulation Authority cancelled the safer-zone notification and Form-B1 and refused Form-C, citing public-interest concerns. The petitioner challenged that order.

Whether Section 10 of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 authorised cancellation of Form-B1 when no Form-C licence had been issued.

Whether the authority could rescind the safer-zone notification and refuse Form-C on the basis of objections and general concerns, without material showing non-compliance with Section 6 or identifying an error in the inspection findings.

Section 6 of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 prescribes locational conditions for safer zones and requires verification through joint inspection by designated officers before declaration of a safer zone.

Section 10 provides for cancellation of a licence where it was granted contrary to the Act or Rules, or the licensee violated licence conditions, and requires an opportunity to be heard; it concerns a licence, not a Form-B1 certificate.

Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 ordinarily includes power to amend, vary or rescind a notification, but that power must be exercised consistently with the governing statute and on grounds relevant to the statutory scheme.

In H.T. Manju v. State of Karnataka, the Court recognised the statutory sequence of inspection, safer-zone declaration and licensing, and the limits on invoking licence-cancellation powers.

The principles in Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Shimla v. Prem Lata and State of Tamil Nadu v. Hind Stone establish that an application or intermediate statutory approval does not, by itself, create a vested right to a licence.

The site had passed multiple inspections, including the December 2025 joint inspection, which again found it compliant with Section 6 and recommended Form-C. Although the authority heard and considered the villagers’ concerns, its order identified no particular statutory-distance violation, erroneous technical finding or subsequent change making the site unsuitable.

General environmental and public-interest concerns, without supporting material tied to Section 6, did not justify rescinding the safer-zone determination. Further, the authority invoked Section 10 to cancel Form-B1 despite accepting that Form-B1 was not a licence. Section 21 did not cure these defects: any power to rescind the notification had to be exercised consistently with Section 6 and on relevant material, which was absent.

It directed the authority to process and issue the petitioner’s Form-C licence, subject to any remaining statutory requirements, within four weeks. The order did not prevent competent authorities from taking lawful action if the petitioner later violated licence, consent, environmental or other statutory conditions.