1.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner was granted a licence under sub section (1) of Section 3 of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act 2011 (for short ‘the said Act of 2011’) read with sub rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Rules 2012 (for short ‘the said Rules of 2012’). The licence in Form ‘C’ was valid upto 18th November 2018.

3. On 24th July 2017, a notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to stop activity on the basis of the said licence. The said notice was set aside by a Division Bench of this Court by the order dated 21st November 2017. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why his licence should not be cancelled. An order was made on 31st January 2018 by the District Stone Crushers Regulation Committee canceling the licence granted to the petitioner. The said order was subjected to a challenge by filing a writ petition No.13923/2018. By the order dated 20th November 2018, the said order was set aside and the case was remanded for reconsideration to the District Stone Crushers Licensing and Regulation Authority (for short ‘the said Authority’). Ultimately, the order dated 5th February 2020 came to be passed by the said Authority, which holds that as the licence granted to the petitioner has expired long back, it is not necessary to consider the issue of cancellation of safer zone and Form ‘C’. In the meanwhile, on 8th July 2020, the petitioner applied for renewal of the licence.

4. The prayer in this petition is for quashing the said order dated 5th February 2019 and to consider the case of the petitioner for renewal of the licence.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the earlier order dated 31st January 2018 was passed purportedly canceling declaration of the safer zone and the said order was set aside. He urged that the impugned order has not disturbed the declaration of safer zone. He submitted that it is only due to the illegality committed by the respondents that the petitioner could not continue the crushing activity till the date of expiry of the licence. He submitted that though the application for renewal of licence has not been filed within the time stipulated by law, after noticing the peculiar facts of the case and the illegal acts of the respondents due to which the petitioner could not continue crushing activity till the date of expiry of the licence, this Court can always exercise extraordinary jurisdiction directing the Licensing Authority to consider the application for renewal though it is not filed within stipulated period.

6. We have carefully considered the submissions.

7. We have perused the order dated 5th February 2020. It is true that there is a finding recorded in the said order that the requirements of safer zone will be satisfied in the case of the petitioner. However, by the time the said order was passed, the licence had expired on 18th November 2018. Therefore, the said Authority was not competent to grant a permission to the petitioner to carry on crushing activities in view of the expiry of licence.

8. As per sub section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act of 2011, an application for renewal of licence is required to be made to the licencing authority ninety days before the expiry of licence. Even the substituted section 5 of the said Act of 2011 which came into effect from 30th March 2020 requires that an application for renewal has to be filed before the expiry of licence. Thus, the said Authority had no power to consider the application for renewal of licence made by the petitioner on 8th July 2020. Hence, no relief can be granted directing the renewal of licence. If any loss has been caused by the petitioner due to the unlawful act of stopping the activities on the basis of the licence, the petitioner can always seek appropriate monitory relief by approaching the Civil Court.

9. Subject to what is observed above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

10. However, this order will not prevent the petitioner from making a fresh application for grant of a licence in accordance with Section 4 of the said Act of 2011. If such an application is made, the same shall be processed and decided in accordance with law.