IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.41059 OF 2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI MUNIRAJU S/O. SRI KEMPAIAH AGED 45 YEARS R/OF KADUSONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE KANNUR POST, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SUDHAKAR V., ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR BANGALORE EAST TALK K.R. PURAM BANGAORE-560 043.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI Y.D. HARSHA, A.G.A. FOR R1 AND R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICES ISSUED BY R1 BOTH DATED 31.05.2016 AT ANNEX-G AND ANNEX-H RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri Sudhakar V., learned counsel for petitioner. Sri Y.D. Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the impugned notices dated 31.05.2016 contained in Annexures-G and H issued under Section 39 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, by which a sum of `.2,03,928/- and `.1,08,252/- respectively along with recovery charges at the rate of 2.5% is sought to be recovered from the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the similar contention as averred in the writ petition that the impugned demand notices have been issued without any adjudication and without ascertaining as to how the petitioner is liable to pay the amount in question. It is further submitted that, before issuing the impugned demand notices, neither any enquiry has been conducted nor steps have been taken by the respondents to properly assess the amount which is due and payable by the petitioner. Learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents was unable to point out from the records that any such enquiry was conducted by the respondents, before issuing the impugned demand notices.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Taking into account the fact that before issuing the impugned demand notices, no enquiry was held to ascertain the amount which is due and payable by the petitioner, the impugned demand notices cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the same are quashed. However, the respondents are granted the liberty to hold an enquiry and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, assess the amount due and payable by the petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ST