Allowed

H.K.Lakshmane Gowda v. Senior Geologist

Karnataka HC3 Dec 2018WP/14166/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of writ petitions challenging notices dated June and July 2016 issued by the Department of Mines and Geology. The Court held that coercive recovery was unsustainable due to lack of an opportunity of hearing before the notices were issued. Petitions were allowed with directions to treat notices as show-cause notices, permit a four-week reply, and stay coercive recovery proce

What did the court decide?

Necessary bridging notice dated 14.07.2016 be treated as show cause notice; petitioner to submit reply within four weeks; coercive recovery proceedings to be stayed.

H.K.Lakshmane Gowda Vs Senior Geologist — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

W.P.No.14166/2017 & CONNECTED MATTERS

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶6

HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S. SUJATHA

¶7

W.P.No.14166/ 2017 c/w W.P.Nos.14167/2017,

¶8

14168/2017, 13752/2018, 13753/2018,

¶9

6088/2018 & 6089/2018 (GM–MM–S)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

H.K.LAKSHMANE GOWDA S/O H.T.KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT CHILKUNDA VILLAGE AND POST HUNASUR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT-570068. ... PETITIONER

¶12

(COMMON)

¶13

(BY SRI MANJUNATH K.V., ADV.)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY NO.4, GAGANACHUMBI DOUBLE ROAD, KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSORE - 570023

¶16

THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KAHNIJA BHAVAN, BANGALORE-560001.

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT

¶18

W.P.No.14166/2017 & CONNECTED MATTERS

¶19

¶20

M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE – 560001 ... RESPONDENTS (COMMON)

¶21

(BY SRI V.G.BHANUPRAKASH, AGA.)

¶22

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION No.14166/2017 IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNX-E THE NOTICE DATED 16.06.2016 ISSUED BY THE R-1.

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION No.14167/2017 IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNX-D THE NOTICE DATED 16.06.2016 ISSUED BY THE R-1.

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION No.14168/2017 IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNX-E THE NOTICE DATED 16.06.2016 ISSUED BY THE R-1.

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION No.13752/2018 IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNX-C THE NOTICE DATED 13.07.2017 ISSUED BY THE R-1.

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION No.13753/2018 IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNX-C THE NOTICE DATED 13.07.2017 ISSUED BY THE R-1.

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION No.6088/2018 IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNX-C THE NOTICE DATED 14.07.2016 ISSUED BY THE R-1.

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION No.6089/2018 IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNX-C THE NOTICE DATED 14.07.2016 ISSUED BY THE R-1.

¶30

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

W.P.No.14166/2017 & CONNECTED MATTERS

¶32

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the matters are taken up for final disposal at this stage itself.

¶35

The petitioner, said to be the leaseholder in respect of the land situated at Attiguppe village, Kottegala village, Hunsur Taluk, Mysore District, has preferred these writ petitions on being aggrieved of the notices dated 16.06.2016, 13.07.2016 and 14.07.2016, as issued by the respondent No.1.

¶36

Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents though had attempted to justify the action of the respondents, but could not dispute the fundamental fact that before calling upon the petitioner to remit the amount by way of the impugned notices dated 16.06.2016,13.07.2016 and 14.07.2016, the petitioner was not served with the prior notices of the demand sought to be made.

¶37

In the indisputable fact situation that the impugned notices have been issued without extending an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, we are of the view that the recovery under the said notices cannot be sustained.

¶38

In our view, the interest of justice shall be served if the said notices dated 16.06.2016,13.07.2016 and 14.07.2016 are

¶39

W.P.No.14166/2017 & CONNECTED MATTERS

¶40

¶41

treated to be show cause notices and the petitioner is permitted to submit his specific reply to the allegations made therein within four weeks, while leaving it open for the authorities to pass appropriate speaking order within four weeks after reply/objections of the petitioner.

¶42

In the interest of justice, it is also considered appropriate to provide that until final decision in the matter after receiving the reply/objections, the respondents shall not adopt coercive recovery proceedings against the petitioner.

¶43

The petitions stand disposed of with the observations, directions and requirements aforesaid.

No costs.

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE

Dvr:

H.K.Lakshmane Gowda v. Senior Geologist

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H.K.Lakshmane Gowda v. Senior Geologist

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.K. Hanumanthappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri v Padmamma Vs State of Karnataka

Mahalakshmi Stone Crushers Vs the State of Karnataka

H K Lakshmane Gowda Vs Senior Geologist

H K Lakshmane Gowda Vs Senior Geologist

M/S Manjunatha Stone Private Limited Vs the State of Karnataka