IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 30010 / 2018 (GM-MM-S) BETWEEN:
M/S. SURESH ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI SURESH. V. SHEJAWADAKAR AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFITS NOT CLAIMED) R/O. AKSHAYA CENTER, GOKUL ROAD GOKAL, UDYAM NAGAR HUBLI-580 030.
(BY SHRI R. G. KOLLE, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHAN SOUDHA BENGALURU BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. DEPT. OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE DIRECTOR & COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY ... PETITIONER KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.
4. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY DC OFFICE COMPOUND DHARWAD-580 030.
5. THE TECHNICAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPT. OF MINES AND GEOLOGY DHARWAD-580 030.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT TO QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE FINAL NOTICE DATED 23.02.2018 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A DEMANDING PENALTY OF RS.58,32,000/- AS FIVE TIMES THE ROYALTY FOR HAVING RAISED 38,880 MT ORDINARY BUILDING STONES WITHIN THE QUARRYING LEASE AREA AT QL NO.762 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents.
2. By the impugned final notice dated 23rd February 2018, the petitioner was informed that the Geologist and the Junior Engineers attached to the office of the Senior Geologist (Mineral) visited the building stone quarry lease area given to the petitioner on 4th January 2014 and carried out the inspection and it was realized that the petitioner was conducting quarrying activities outside the limits of leased area to an extent of 25 guntas. Therefore, the demand was made for the penalty.
3. On the last date, we had called upon the learned High Court Government Pleader to take instructions whether the inspection was carried out with a notice to the petitioner. Today, he accepted that the inspection was carried out without the prior notice to the petitioner.
4. The demand for penalty is based on the inspection report. Moreover, the penalty relates to the period prior to 2016 Amendment to the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 and therefore, the contention is that the penalty based on the quantum of royalty could not have been imposed.
5. The demand was made based on the inspection carried out without notice to the petitioner. Only on that ground, we set aside the final notice dated 23rd February 2018 and permit the respondents to take a fresh proceeding. We make it clear that the survey, if any, shall be carried out only after the issuance of a notice to the petitioner.
6. As regards the claim for refund of dead rent is concerned, if any application is made by the petitioner to that effect to the authority concerned, the authority to consider the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the refund application.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with the above terms.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE SN