Karnatak

HC notice to State on plea questioning Ordinance to amend stone crushers’ law

‘No urgency existed to amend law through Ordinance as it only benefits private parties and not to protect environment’

The High Court of Karnataka on Friday ordered issue of notice to the State government on a PIL petition questioning the correctness of promulgating an Ordinance during the pandemic without any public urgency to dilute the law regulating safe zone norms for stone crushers.

The petition has questioned the correctness of the exercise of power in law, citing urgency, to promulgate the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 on March 31, 2020.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice H.P. Sandesh passed the order on the petition filed by R. Anjaneya Reddy from Chickballapur.

The Ordinance was promulgated to amend the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2012, which was enacted to define the safer zones for stone-crushing activities and regulate them.

“The promulgation of the Ordinance was bad in law as there was no specific public emergency that existed which rendered it necessary for the Governor to take immediate action by promulgating an Ordinance and amend the provision of a particular legislation during the period of national lockdown. It is evident that the amendment was carried out during the lockdown period solely with an intention to aid and support the mining and crusher lobby which veiled its hands in the corridor of power,” it has been alleged in the petition.

Pointing out that the 2012 Act was enacted based on the directions of the HC and the SC to protect the environment by regulating stone-crushing activities, the petitioner has contended the Ordinance only benefits private individuals and companies, and not the environment.

The amended provisions relaxed the licensing condition by allowing transfer of license, extension of license from the existing five years to 20 years, and permitting setting up of crushing units within 100 meters by reducing safer zone limit only to 50m distance from major district roads, the petitioner pointed out.

Next Story