IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.5615/2017 (GM-MM-S) BETWEEN:
M/S PRIYADHARSHINI GRANITE PVT. LTD., R/AT NO.171, AECS LAYOUT BEHIND POLICE STATION ROAD 1ST STAGE, 1ST MAIN ROAD 1ST CROSS, SANJAY NAGAR BANGALORE-560 094 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. J.L. AJITH AGED 28 YEARS ... PETITIONER (BY SHRI. MADANAGOUDA N. PATIL AND MS. D.J. RAKSHITA, ADVOCATES) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY NO.2652/2667, RAILWAY STATION ROAD GANDHINAGAR,TUMKUR-572 102 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD:28.9.2016/3309 PASSED BY THE R-3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, NO.2652/2667 RAILWAY STATION ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, TUMKUR-572 102 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-M TO THE W.P.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING – ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondents.
2. An application was made by the petitioner for grant of quarrying lease. On 23rd May 2015, a Notification was issued by the Government of Karnataka in exercise of the powers conferred under the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1994. The said Notification provided for sanction of stone quarrying lease to the petitioner for a period of 20 years. On 28th September 2016, the third respondent passed an order directing revocation of the Notification dated 23rd May 2015.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that in a contempt petition filed in this Court on 4th October 2018, for the first time, a copy of the order of revocation dated 28th September 2016 was produced and hence, there is no delay in this petition filed on 3rd February 2017.
4. There are two contentions raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The first contention is that the order of revocation dated 28th September 2016 is vitiated in view of the breach of principles of natural justice, as no opportunity of being heard was granted to the petitioner before passing the order. The second contention is that there is no power vested in the respondents to revoke the Notification.
5. So far as the first contention is concerned, the learned HCGP on instructions states that the action of revocation of Notification dated 28th September 2016 was taken without issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner and without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.
6. The rights of the petitioner have been affected by the impugned order of revocation of the Notification dated 23rd May 2015 inasmuch as under the said Notification, petitioner was entitled to quarrying lease for a period of 20 years. The said right is taken away by the impugned Notification of revocation. Therefore, it was mandatory for the respondents to comply with the principles of natural justice, by issuing a show cause notice and by granting an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.
7. If the respondents want to revoke the Notification, they will have to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner. While filing a reply to the notice, the petitioner can always raise a contention regarding absence of the power of revocation. Subject to what is stated above, the Notification dated 28th September 2016 passed by the third respondent is hereby quashed and set-aside. If the respondents desire to revoke the Notification dated 23rd May 2015, they can do so only after issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner and by granting an opportunity to the petitioner to file a reply and of being heard.
8. The issue whether the respondents have power to revoke the Notification dated 23rd May 2015 is kept open which can be agitated by the petition while filing reply to show cause notice if issued. Writ petition is partly allowed in the above terms.
No orders as to costs.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE SPS