SWASTIK STEEL (HOSPET) LTD., vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 7T H DAY OF JANUARY, 2013 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBHASH B. ADI WRIT PETITION No.72692/2012 (GM-MM-S) BETWEEN: SWASTIK STEEL (HOSPET) LTD., OPP: APMC HARIHAR CHECK POST, TB DAM ROAD, HOSPET, BY ITS DIRECTOR KVN GOVINDRAJ S/O. K. GOPALSETTY AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. 8T H CROSS, GEETA GOPAL MANSION, M.J. NAGAR, HOSPET. … PETITIONER. (BY SRI V.M.SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE.) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISISONER, BELLARY. 3. DIRECTOR, MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE. 4. S.V. CHETTY IRON ORE MINES, OLD INCOME TAX OFFICE BUILDING,

2 NEAR SAHAKARI KALYAN MANTAPA, N.C. COLONY, HOSPET, DIST: BELLARY. …RESPONDENTS. (BY SMT.K.VIDYAVATI, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE, FOR R.1 TO R.3.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER/DIRECTION DATED 09.08.2012, PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-L-1 AND TO DIRECT THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO NOT TO OBSTRUCT THE PETITIONER FORM LIFTING THE IRON ORE PURCHASED BY THE PETITIONER FORM 4T H RESPONDENT MINES, ETC.,. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER. ORDER Smt.K.Vidyavathi, Addl. Government Advocate, is directed to take notice for the respondents No.1 to 3. 2. Petitioner has called in question an endorsement of the Deputy Commissioner, produced at Annexure-L1, dated 9.8.2012. 3. Petitioner has sought for lifting of iron ore belonging to Swastik Steel Ltd. However, the Deputy

3 Commissioner has issued an endorsement stating that lifting of iron ore is subject to written orders from the Monitoring Committee in the said regard and as such the owner of the mine namely Swastik Steel Ltd., was not permitted to lift the iron ore till specific directions are issued from the Committee. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Monitoring Committee has permitted the petitioner to lift the ore. In this regard the petitioner has also deposited an amount of Rs.48,80,000/-. 5. If the Monitoring Committee has permitted the petitioner to lift the ore, nothing prevents the petitioner from producing the said copy before the Deputy Commissioner. Even the Deputy Commissioner also has stated that till the directions are received from the Monitoring Committee, he will not permit for lifting of the ore. As such keeping liberty to the petitioner to approach the Deputy

4 Commissioner with necessary documents, the petition stands disposed of.

SD/-

JUDGE Mrk/-