<p class="title">The state government’s ‘controversial’ amendment to the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act 2011 (KRSC Act) promulgated by an ordinance during the coronavirus-induced lockdown has reached the Karnataka High Court.</p>.<p class="bodytext">A division bench of the high court has issued notice to the state government on a PIL challenging the amendments.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The petition is filed by R Anjaneya Reddy, a resident of Patrenahalli in Chikkaballapur taluk. The petition stated that there was no specific public emergency to amend the provisions in the Act during the national lockdown on March 31, 2020. The KRSC Act was introduced by the state government following the orders of the Karnataka High Court on a PIL in the year 1998. The petitioner claimed that the high court had laid down certain conditions and directed the state government to incorporate them in the Act. Whereas, most of the amendments carried out by the state government are against the orders of the high court, the petitioner claimed.</p>.<p class="bodytext">A division bench comprising Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice H P Sandesh ordered the issuance of notice to Department of Law and Parliamentary Affairs and Department of Mines and Geology. The matter has been posted to August 24 for further<br />hearing.</p>.<p class="bodytext">One of the major contentions in the PIL is with regard to the amendment to Section 5 of the Act. The amendment has allowed granting of license for the period of 20 years. The petition contended that the high court in 1998 had directed the state to issue licenses for one year and renew it every year by charging a license fee. The petitioner contended that the amendment will make the license an absolute property of the licensee.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Similarly, the omission of Sub Sections 3 to 7 of the Section 3 forbears the crusher owners from filing a declaration that the crusher is situated in a safer zone. It enables the crusher owner to carry out the business beyond the safer zone. The petitioner also stated that insertion of Section 4 A allows a license holder to transfer the license to any person. The petition submitted that once new licenses are issued under the amended provisions, there is likelihood of licensees taking undue advantage and that it could lead to litigation.</p>
<p class="title">The state government’s ‘controversial’ amendment to the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act 2011 (KRSC Act) promulgated by an ordinance during the coronavirus-induced lockdown has reached the Karnataka High Court.</p>.<p class="bodytext">A division bench of the high court has issued notice to the state government on a PIL challenging the amendments.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The petition is filed by R Anjaneya Reddy, a resident of Patrenahalli in Chikkaballapur taluk. The petition stated that there was no specific public emergency to amend the provisions in the Act during the national lockdown on March 31, 2020. The KRSC Act was introduced by the state government following the orders of the Karnataka High Court on a PIL in the year 1998. The petitioner claimed that the high court had laid down certain conditions and directed the state government to incorporate them in the Act. Whereas, most of the amendments carried out by the state government are against the orders of the high court, the petitioner claimed.</p>.<p class="bodytext">A division bench comprising Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice H P Sandesh ordered the issuance of notice to Department of Law and Parliamentary Affairs and Department of Mines and Geology. The matter has been posted to August 24 for further<br />hearing.</p>.<p class="bodytext">One of the major contentions in the PIL is with regard to the amendment to Section 5 of the Act. The amendment has allowed granting of license for the period of 20 years. The petition contended that the high court in 1998 had directed the state to issue licenses for one year and renew it every year by charging a license fee. The petitioner contended that the amendment will make the license an absolute property of the licensee.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Similarly, the omission of Sub Sections 3 to 7 of the Section 3 forbears the crusher owners from filing a declaration that the crusher is situated in a safer zone. It enables the crusher owner to carry out the business beyond the safer zone. The petitioner also stated that insertion of Section 4 A allows a license holder to transfer the license to any person. The petition submitted that once new licenses are issued under the amended provisions, there is likelihood of licensees taking undue advantage and that it could lead to litigation.</p>
