02 May 2008
Supreme Court
Download

STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs ASHA TRANSPORTS

Case number: C.A. No.-003278-003278 / 2008
Diary number: 26693 / 2005
Advocates: Vs VIJAY KUMAR


1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  3278 of 2008

PETITIONER: STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS

RESPONDENT: ASHA TRANSPORTS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/05/2008

BENCH: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN & R.V. RAVEENDRAN & MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

                                         1

                          IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                    CIVIL APPEAL NO.3278 OF 2008             (@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)NO.2224 OF 2006 )

STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.                         Appellant(s)

                 VERSUS

ASHA TRANSPORTS                               Respondent(s)

                                  WITH

                 I.A.NO.2 in CIVIL APPEAL NO.3278 OF 2008                             @ SLP(C)No.2224/2006

                                     ORDER

      Leave granted. Heard both sides.

2.     The State has filed this appeal challenging the order of the Division

Bench affirming the order of the learned Single Judge which permitted the

respondent, pending consideration of the application for renewal of its

mining lease, to lift the excavated material ore (said to have been excavated

before the expiry of the lease period), by paying royalty.

3.     The respondent filed I.A.No.2/2007 seeking leave to withdraw             the

writ   petition   itself     by   setting aside    the   order   of   the   learned

Single Judge and

2

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

                                      2

Division Bench in its favour, to avoid delay in consideration of its application

for renewal. The learned counsel for the State opposed the said application.

4.    Learned counsel for the respondent therefore submitted that he will

not press I.A.2 and that the respondent has no objection for the appeal itself

being allowed.

5.    Accordingly, we reject I.A.2 and allow this appeal and set aside the

judgment of the Division Bench as also the decision of the learned Single

Judge permitting the respondent to lift the excavated material by paying

royalty.

                                                                 ...............CJI.                                                           (K.G. BALAKRISHNAN)

                                                                .................J.                                                      (R.V. RAVEENDRAN)

                                                              .................J.                                                      (MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

NEW DELHI; 2ND MAY, 2008.