The Karnataka High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking qashment of the mining lease deed granted in favour of Private Respondent (respondent No.6) .
The PIL has been filed by the residents of Lakshmipura Village, K.G.Jajuru, Sompura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District.
The counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.6 is carrying out blasting activities which is causing serious damage to the residential houses in the vicinity of the said village. He submits that these houses are situated at a distance of about 150 to 200 meters from the area for which the quarry lease has been granted to respondent No.6. He further submits that there is a temple situated within a distance of 200 meters from the quarry area and the possibility of damage being caused to the temple cannot be ruled out on account of the blasting activities carried out by respondent No.6.
It is stated in the statement of objections that respondent No.4 (The Deputy Director Mines and Geology Department) on receipt of all statutory clearances, proceeded to execute the lease deed dated 22.10.2021 for a period of 20 years for extraction of building stone in favour of respondent No.6. It is stated that in the year 2021, a complaint was received by respondent No.3 (The Deputy Commissioner) from National Social Justice Bureau that on account of the blasting and quarrying activities carried out by respondent No.6, damages have been caused to the houses of the villagers and it may also cause damage to the temple situated in that vicinity. There is also a lot of noise pollution. On receipt of the said complaint, the Technical Officers of the Department of Mines and Geology, Bengaluru Rural District, conducted a spot inspection on 19.01.2022 and reported that the quarry lease area is at a distance of 255 meters from Lakshmipura Village, 314 meters from Lakshmipura Government Lower Primary School, 186 meters from village road and 166 meters from Mullakatamma temple. The same was reported to respondent No.4 on 14.02.2022 who, in turn, issued an intimation letter dated 07.03.2022 to respondent No.6 to stop the blasting activities till verification of the quarry area with the concerned Departments.
Considering all these aspects, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B. Varale and Justice Ashok S. Kinagi is of the view that the cause espoused in the present public interest litigation has been duly addressed by the State Authorities by directing respondent No.6 to stop the blasting activities at Points ‘E’ and ‘B’ which were within a distance of 200 meters and to carry out the quarrying activities in the rest of the area which is situated beyond 200 meters.
“As such, it can safely be said that the State Authorities strike a proper balance by stopping the blasting activities within an area of 200 meters and at the same time, permitting respondent No.6 to carry out such activities in the rest of the areas beyond 200 meters. We are satisfied with the timely action and the steps taken by the State Authorities and therefore, there is no reason to keep the present public interest litigation pending in this Court. “
At this stage, the counsel for the petitioners vehemently submits that because of the blasting activities carried out by respondent No.6, damages have been caused to the houses situated in Lakshmipura village. However, he admits that these houses are situated beyond 200 meters from the quarry lease area and prays that a direction be issued for re-inspection and re-survey of the quarry lease area.
As the Court have dealt with the timely action taken by the State Authorities in detail and since, admittedly, the area to which the petitioners are referring to is beyond 200 meters from the quarry lease area, find no reason to entertain the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioners to direct re-inspection or re-survey of the quarry lease area. As such, in our opinion, the cause espoused in the public interest litigation has been duly addressed by the State Authorities and the purpose for which the petition is filed has been served.
“In case the villagers have a grievance that because of the blasting activities carried out by respondent No.6, damages have been caused to their houses which are situated beyond 200 meters area, they may take appropriate remedies before the competent forum, if so advised”, the order reads.