Hindustan Zinc Limited vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 December, 2018

Karnataka High Court
Author: Chief Justice S.Sujatha
                                          W.P.No.34333/2017


                           -1-


   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018

                        PRESENT

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE

                           AND

             HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

         WRIT PETITION NO.34333 OF 2017 (GM-MM-S)

  BETWEEN:

  HINDUSTAN ZINC LIMITED
  REGISTERED OFFICE AT YASHAD BHAWAN
  SWAROOP SAGAR
  UDAIPUR - 313 004
  RAJASTHAN STATE
  REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
  MISS. AKSHITA ALOK
  D/O SRI ALOK AGARWAL
  AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
                                          ... PETITIONER

  (BY SRI SWAMY M.M., ADVOCATE)

  AND:

  1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
         REP. BY ITS SECRETARY (MINES)
         DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES
         1ST FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA
         BANGALORE - 560 001.

  2.     NATIONAL MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
         'KHANIJA BHAWAN', 10-3-311/A
         CASTLE HILLS, MASAB TANK
         HYDERABAD - 500 028
         REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
                                                     W.P.No.34333/2017


                               -2-


3.   UNION OF INDIA
     MINISTRY OF MINES
     SHASHTRI BHAWAN
     NEW DELHI - 110 001
     REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

4.   THE REVISION AUTHORITY
     MINISTRY OF MINES
     GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
     SHASHTRI BHAWAN
     NEW DELHI - 110 001.
                                              ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI K.A. ARIGA, CGC FOR R3 & R4
    SRI V.G. BHANUPRAKASH, AGA FOR R1
    SRI K. RAGHAVACHARYULU, ADV. FOR
    SRI MOHAMED RIZWAN AHAMED, ADV. FOR R2)

                               ---
     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT AND DECLARE THAT THE PETITIONER HAS A
SUBSISTING     RIGHT      AS     THE      HOLDER        OF      THE
RECONNAISSANCE PERMIT FOR GOLD AND ASSOCIATED
MINERALS     OVER   AN    AREA       OF   1706.88    SQ.KMS.      IN
CHITRADURGA     AND      TUMKUR      DISTRICTS      UNDER       THE
NOTIFICATION DATED 13.09.2011 ISSUED BY THE R-1 VIDE
ANNEXURE-B AND QUASH THE ALLOTMENT MADE BY THE
MINISTRY OF MINES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA IN RESPECT
OF THE AREA MEASURING 168 SQ.KMS. BUKKAPATNA
BLOCK, TUMKUR AS CLAIMED BY THE R-2 AND ETC.


     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                                 W.P.No.34333/2017


                             -3-



                            ORDER

Learned counsel for the petitioner has moved a memo seeking permission to withdraw.

Learned counsel for the respondents have no objection.

Permission granted.

The petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-

JUDGE ca

Writ

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

In common law, a writ (Anglo-Saxon gewrit, Latin breve)[1] is a formal written order issued by a body with administrative or judicial jurisdiction; in modern usage, this body is generally a courtWarrantsprerogative writs, and subpoenas are common types of writ, but many forms exist and have existed.

In its earliest form a writ was simply a written order made by the English monarch to a specified person to undertake a specified action; for example, in the feudal era a military summons by the king to one of his tenants-in-chief to appear dressed for battle with retinue at a certain place and time.[2] An early usage survives in the United KingdomCanadaand Australia in a writ of election, which is a written order issued on behalf of the monarch (in Canada, by the Governor General and, in Australia, by the Governor-General for elections for the House of Representatives, or State Governors for State elections) to local officials (High Sheriffs of every county in the historical UK) to hold a general election. Writs were used by the medieval English kings to summon persons to Parliament,[3] (then consisting primarily of the House of Lords) whose advice was considered valuable or who were particularly influential, and who were thereby deemed to have been created “barons by writ“.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *