K. GURUPRASAD RAO versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

K. GURUPRASAD RAO versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

Mining operations in the protected or regulated area around Jambunatha Temple, declared as a protected monument, cannot be permitted without license under the relevant monuments protection statutes. The Expert Committee's recommendations for dividing the area into Core and Buffer zones, imposing a total ban on mining within the Core Zone, and tightly regulating mining in the Buffer Zone under expert supervision, are to be implemented. Sustainable development principle requires that protection of ancient monuments override competing developmental interests. Petition is not barred by res judicata in absence of record of prior proceedings.

Parties
Appellant: K. Guruprasad Rao; Respondent: State of Karnataka; Respondent: Respondent No. 4; Respondent: Respondent No. 9 (Archaeological Survey of India); Respondent: Respondent No. 18
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal After High Court Dismissal of Writ Petition
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Ancient Monuments Protection, Mining Regulation, Public Interest Litigation, Sustainable Development, Res Judicata
Constitutional Law Environmental Law Administrative Law Cultural Heritage Protection Ancient Monuments Protection Mining Regulation Public Interest Litigation Sustainable Development +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K. Guruprasad Rao

Appellant

State of Karnataka

Respondent

Respondent No. 4

Respondent

Respondent No. 9 (Archaeological Survey of India)

Respondent

Respondent No. 18

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal After High Court Dismissal of Writ Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether mining operations are permissible in protected areas around ancient monuments under applicable legislation
  2. 2 Whether mining in vicinity of Jambunatha Temple, a protected monument, is lawful without license under monuments protection statutes
  3. 3 Whether previous High Court proceedings bar the current petition via res judicata

Ratio Decidendi

Mining operations in the protected or regulated area around Jambunatha Temple, declared as a protected monument, cannot be permitted without license under the relevant monuments protection statutes. The Expert Committee's recommendations for dividing the area into Core and Buffer zones, imposing a total ban on mining within the Core Zone, and tightly regulating mining in the Buffer Zone under expert supervision, are to be implemented. Sustainable development principle requires that protection of ancient monuments override competing developmental interests. Petition is not barred by res judicata in absence of record of prior proceedings.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Impugned High Court order set aside.
  • Expert Committee's report accepted.