IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.L. NARAYANA SWAMY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 63729/2016 (GM-MM-S) BETWEEN:
ORIENT CEMENTS LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 WITH ITS OFFICES AT 5-9-22/57/D G P BIRLA CENTER, 2ND FLOOR ADARSH NAGAR HYDERABAD-500 063 REPRESENTED BY ITS CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY MR. SHYAM BEHARI MAHESHWARI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS ... PETITIONER (BY SRI MANU KULKARNI, ADV., FOR SMT. NALINA MAYEGOWDA, ADV.,) AND 1.STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES 1ST FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001 2.UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF MINES 3RD FLOOR, ‘A’ WING SHASTRI BHAVAN NEW DELHI-110 001 3.THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP FOR R-1 & 3;
SMT. ROOPA M P, ADV., FOR SRI K.A.ARIGA, CGC FOR R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 29.11.2016 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 TO THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo dated 22.08.2017 stating that the petitioner has complied with order of this Court dated 15.12.2016. Memo is taken on record.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing of the notice dated 28/29.11.2016 issued by respondent No.3 –Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Bengaluru, under Rules 7(3), 7(10) read with Rule 8(2) of the M(OAHCEM) Concession Rules, 2016 (Annexure-A), demanding payment of certain amounts (not quantified) within a period of 30 days.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before demanding such payment, the petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity to put forth its case and hence, the impugned notice is in violation of the principles of natural justice and is liable to be quashed.
4. On the other hand, learned HCGP appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 3 has justified the action of the respondent No.3 and submitted that the impugned notice has been issued strictly in compliance with the relevant provisions and therefore, the question of quashing the same does not arise.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 -Union of India submits that the impugned notice has been issued by the Director, Department of Mines and Geology and that respondent No.2 is not a contesting party.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. The only ground made out by the petitioner is that the impugned notice has been issued by respondent No.3 without affording an opportunity to it. The respondents have not produced any document to show that the petitioner has been given prior notice before demanding payment of amount. In the circumstances, ends of justice would be met if the impugned notice (Annexure-A) is ordered to be treated as a show cause notice and the petitioner is given an opportunity to respond to the same.
8. Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 28/29.11.2016 is ordered to be treated as a show cause notice and the petitioner is permitted to respond to the same by way of representation/reply, if any, within two weeks from today. On such filing of representation/reply, respondent No.3 is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within four weeks thereafter.
With these observations, the petition stands disposed of.
The amount deposited as per the order of this Court dated 15.12.2016 is directed to be refunded to the petitioner.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE bkv