IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD 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.16495 OF 2017 (GM-MM-S) BETWEEN:
SRI. NARAYANA REDDY S/O LATE KRISHNA REDDY AGED 68 YEARS R/AT NO.41, 14TH CROSS KACHARAKANAHALLY ST.THOMAS POST BANGALORE – 560 084 (BY SRI.K.N.NITISH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001 2. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE – 560 001 3. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY 13TH FLOOR, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE DISTRICT BANGALORE – 560 001 ... PETITIONER 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT BANGALORE – 560 001 (BY SRI.V.G.BHANUPRAKASH, AGA) ---
... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION AT ANNEXURE-F MADE BY 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 18.03.2017 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing of the communication dated 06/18.03.2017 issued by the respondent No.3 – Senior Geologist, Department of Mines and Geology, Bengaluru, under Rule 21 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (Annexure-F), directing to collect a sum of Rs.6,69,194/- plus taxes from the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before raising such a demand, the petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity to put forth his case and hence, the impugned communication is in violation of the principles of natural justice and is liable to be quashed. It is also submitted that the petitioner is not supplied with the impugned communication and based on such communication the respondent No.4 is demanding payment from the petitioner.
3. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents submits that the petitioner was served with a notice before issuing the impugned communication and therefore, the question of quashing the same does not arise.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned communication.
5. The only ground made out by the petitioner is that the impugned communication has been issued without affording an opportunity to him. The respondents have not produced any document to show that the petitioner has been given prior notice before issuing the impugned communication demanding payment of amount. In the circumstances, ends of justice would be met if the impugned communication (Annexure-F) is ordered to be treated as a show cause notice and the petitioner is given an opportunity to respond to the same.
6. Accordingly, the impugned communication dated 06/18.03.2017 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 15 days from today. On filing of such representation/reply, the authority concerned is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within three months thereafter.
7. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE AHB