Dismissed

Sri Santhosh Menezes v. the State Government

Karnataka HC5 Aug 2019WP/18087/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging a demand notice for arrears of royalty. The court observed that no show cause notice or opportunity of being hearing was granted before the demand was made. Consequently, the court directed the second respondent to serve a show cause notice and directed that the impugned notice shall not be implemented.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice dated 05.12.2017 shall not be implemented; Second Respondent to serve show cause notice within one month; Authority to pass order after opportunity of hearing within two months.

Sri Santhosh Menezes Vs the State… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT PETITION NO.18087 OF 2019 (GM-MM-S)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI SANTHOSH MENEZES S/O ROBERT MENEZES MAJOR R/AT ANTHOSH MAHAL PACHANADI VILLAGE BONDEL POST, MANGALURU TALUK D.K – 575 003

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SHRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE GOVERNMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECREARY TO DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY MULTISTORIED BUILDING DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001

¶13

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY 1ST FLOOR, JUGAL TOWERS MALLIKATTA, MANGALURU D.K - 575 003

¶14

... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SHRI T.L. KIRAN KUMAR, AGA)

¶16

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 05.12.2017 (ANNEXURE-A) BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT AND ETC.

¶18

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶21

By the impugned notice (Annexure-A), a demand of arrears of royalty and interest thereon was made on the basis of inspection and verification of accounts.

¶22

3. The learned Additional Government Advocate, on

¶23

instructions, states that even subsequent notice has been issued making a similar demand. However, he accepts that so far as Annexure-A is concerned, a show cause notice was not served to the petitioner and an opportunity of being heard was not granted to him before making the demand.

¶24

In view of this position, we dispose of the petition by passing the following order:

¶25

¶26

(i) We direct the second respondent to serve a show cause notice to the petitioner within a period of one month from today;

¶27

(ii) After granting an opportunity to file a reply and of being heard, an appropriate order shall be passed by the concerned authority within a period of two months from the date on which the show cause notice is served to the petitioner;

¶28

(iii) It is needless to add that the impugned notice dated 05.12.2017 (Annexure-A) shall not be implemented;

¶29

(iv) All issues concerning the liability of the petitioner to

¶30

pay royalty and interest thereon are kept open.

¶31

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

Sri Santhosh Menezes v. the State Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Santhosh Menezes v. the State Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijayam Bharani Trust Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri.Lakshminarayana Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Billiton Mine Wings & PWD Contractor Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. K B Somashekhar Vs the Managing Director

Vijayalakshmi Vs the Managing Director

S. Lalitha Vs the Managing Director