K. Srinivas and Others Vs. the State of Karnataka

K. Srinivas and Others vs The State of Karnataka

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Apr 07, 1995

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/375639

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/375639
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: K.B. Navadgi, J.
Decided On: Apr 07, 1995
Case Number: Cri. Pet. No. 715 of 1992
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 [C.A. No. 22/2005]Section 2(b), (c) & (d); [K.L.Manjunath, J] Public Authority Held, A society registered under Section 27 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 is not a Public Authority and the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 is not applicable. Basava S...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 182, 379, 447, 467, 471, 482 and 511; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 482

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

K. Srinivas and Others

Advocate S. Mahesh, Adv. ;for Sri R.B. Deshpande

Respondent

The State of Karnataka

Advocate A.M. Farooq, State Public Prosecutor

Legal References

Acts: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 182, 379, 447, 467, 471, 482 and 511; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 482
Reported In: 1995(2)ALT(Cri)136; 1995(2)KarLJ283

Excerpt

- right to information act, 2005 [c.a. no. 22/2005]section 2(b), (c) & (d); [k.l.manjunath, j] public authority held, a society registered under section 27 of the karnataka societies registration act, 1960 is not a public authority and the provisions of the right to information act, 2005 is not applicable. basava samithi/society is not created by any other law made by the state legislature. it is not a body owned or controlled or substantially financed by the government. it is also not a non-government organisation substantially financed directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate government. it is no doubt true that any society in karnataka established by few or many individuals is required to be registered under the karnataka societies act. it is also not in dispute a society registered under the karnataka societies registration act, is also required to file its annual account and the elections are to be held from time to time in accordance with the bye-laws. the provisions of the societies registration act, 1960 is applicable to all societies are under the control of the government only regulate its activities and to see that it shall not misuse the funds of its members. therefore, such association cannot be treated as a public authority as defined under the right to information act. -- right to information act, 2005 [c.a. no. 22/2005]. section 27: public authority held, a society registered under section 27 of the karnataka societies registration act, 1960 is not a public authority and the provisions of the right to information act, 2005 is not applicable. .....of the learned counsel for petitioners. 4. the question for consideration is : whether petitioners have made out a case for the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the code and to grant the prayer. 5. the facts relevant to answer the question, as emerge from the record are these : 6. m/s. vijaya granites is a concern doing quarrying business. one goutham kumar is the proprietor. the concern has its head office at ilkal in hungund taluk, district bijapur. 7. k. srinivas, petitioner-1, is the power-of-attorney holder of gouthan kumar. murugesh, petitioner-2, is working as a supervisor in the concern. balanagouda, petitioner-3, is a resident of village bhogi ramanagunda in deodurg taluk. 8. m/s. vijaya granites applied for the grant of quarrying lease for extraction of ornamental (pinc) granite from the lands bearing survey nos. 1 to 4, 13 to 15, 38 to 40 and 60 in the limits of bhogi ramanagunda village in deodurg taluk. the government of karnataka granted the lease. annexure-a to the petition is the xerox copy of the quarrying lease. 9. a persual of annexure-a would show that on behalf of the government of karnataka, the deputy director (plans & claims), department of mines and geology, executed the lease in favour of m/s. vijaya granties. the duration of lease was for ten years from 23-8-1980. in accordance with the terms of lease and rule 16 of the mysore (karnataka) minor mineral concession rules, 1969, ('the rules of 1969' for short), m/s. vijaya granties applied for renewal of the licence before the expiry of the lease. the lease was not renewed. 10. m/s vijaya granties filed a writ petition in this court in writ petition no. 17579/90 seeking the following reliefs : 'wherefore, it is prayed that this hon'ble court may be pleased to : (i) declare that rule 3-a of k.m.m.c. rules is unconstitutional, ultra vires of section 15 of m.m.r.d. act; (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Code' for short), with a prayer to quash the investigation launched by the Office-in-charge of the Police Station at Jalahalli in Deodurg Taluk of Raichur District, on the basis of the information lodged by the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Lingsuuar Sub-Division, Lingsuuar, in Raichur District, on 6-4-1992 and to quash the First Information Report issued by the Sub-Inspector of Police on the basis of the case registered in Crime No. 14/1992 and submitted to the jurisdictional Magistrate-Judicial Magistrate First Class, Deodurg ('the learned Magistrate').

2. I have heard Sri S. Mahesh, learned counsel for petitioners 1 to 3, and Sri A. M. Farooq, the learned State Public Prosecutor.

3. I have perused the record in this petition, the record in Crime No. 14/1992, on the file of the learned Magistrate, and the record and proceedings in Writ Petition No. 17579/90 disposed of by the order dated 27-6-1994. The record in the said writ petition was called for perusal at the request of the learned counsel for petitioners.

4. The question for consideration is : Whether petitioners have made out a case for the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code and to grant the prayer.

5. The facts relevant to answer the question, as emerge from the record are these :

6. M/s. Vijaya Granites is a Concern doing quarrying business. One Goutham Kumar is the proprietor. The Concern has its Head Office at Ilkal in Hungund Taluk, District Bijapur.

7. K. Srinivas, petitioner-1, is the Power-of-Attorney Holder of Gouthan Kumar. Murugesh, petitioner-2, is working as a Supervisor in the Concern. Balanagouda, petitioner-3, is a resident of Village Bhogi Ramanagunda in Deodurg Taluk.

8. M/s. Vijaya Granites applied for the grant of quarrying lease for extraction of Ornamental (Pinc) Granite from the lands bearing Survey Nos. 1 to 4, 13 to 15, 38 to 40 and 60 in the limits of Bhogi Ramanagunda village in Deodurg Taluk. The Government of Karnataka granted the lease. Annexure-A to the petition is the xerox copy of the Quarrying Lease.

9. A persual of Annexure-A would show that on behalf of the Government of Karnataka, the Deputy Director (Plans & Claims), Department of Mines and Geology, executed the lease in favour of M/s. Vijaya Granties. The duration of lease was for ten years from 23-8-1980. In accordance with the terms of lease and Rule 16 of the Mysore (Karnataka) Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1969, ('the Rules of 1969' for short), M/s. Vijaya Granties applied for renewal of the licence before the expiry of the lease. The lease was not renewed.

10. M/s Vijaya Granties filed a writ petition in this Court in writ petition No. 17579/90 seeking the following reliefs :

'Wherefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to :

(i) declare that Rule 3-A of K.M.M.C. Rules is unconstitutional, ultra vires of Section 15 of M.M.R.D. Act;

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to consider and grant renewal of quarry lease in favour of petitioner in the interest of justice.

(iii) issue such other appropriate writ or order or direction as deemed fit under the case circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.'

11. During the pendency of the writ petition, in terms of the interim prayer, this Court granted an interim order on 28-8-1990 staying the operation of Rule 3-A of the Rules of 1969 as against M/s. Vijaya Granites and restraining the State of Karnataka by its Secretary, I & C., V.S., Bangalore, the Director of Mines and Geology and the Joint Director of Mines and Geology, Department of Mines and Geology, impleaded as respondents 1, 2 and 3 respectively in the writ petition, from interfering with the right of M/s. Vijaya Granites to carry on the quarrying operations in the lands bearing Survey Nos. 1 to 4, 13 to 15, 18, 39 to 40 and 60 in Bhogi Ramanagunda village under Quarrying Lease 2844, Annexure-B is the xerox copy of the interim order made by this Court in the writ petition.

12. The writ petition came up for disposal on 27-6-1994. It was disposed of with the following order :

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 1995 Same Parties K. Srinivas and Others vs The State of Karnataka Same Subject Criminal Same Judge K.B. Navadgi, J. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 182, 379, 447, 467, ...

Criminal