Partly allowed

Sri. K. Rajendra v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC29 Jul 2019WP/24461/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge quashed a demand notice issued to a mining leaseholder for arrears dated 21.02.2019 holding that it violated principles of natural justice due to lack of specific allegations and no prior show cause notice or opportunity of being heard.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice set aside; respondents allowed to issue a show cause notice; appropriate orders to pass within three months after reply and hearing.

Sri. K. Rajendra Vs the State of Karnataka — Mining and Natural Resources | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF JULY, 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.24461 OF 2019 (GM MM-S)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI K.RAJENDRA S/O SRI K.KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT. NO.42 ‘A’, 31^ST ‘A’ CROSS 7^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 082. ... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI GANAPATI BHAT VAJRALLI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VIDHI

¶12

BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶13

THE SECRETARY

¶14

COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (MINES) VIKASA SOUDHA

¶15

BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶16

THE DIRECTOR

¶17

DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY RAMANAGARA DISTRICT

¶18

RAMANAGARA – 562 159.

¶19

¶20

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY RAMANAGARA DISTRICT RAMANAGARA – 562 159. ... RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGAL, HCGP)

¶22

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED DEMAND NOTICE DATED 21.02.2019 ISSUED BY THE 4^TH RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-F.

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶27

and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶28

Considering the narrow controversy involved, the petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶29

A mining lease was granted to the petitioner which expired on 11^th March 2005. According to the case of the petitioner, he applied for renewal of the lease on 17^th December 2004 but the same was rejected by the fourth respondent on 27^th February 2007.

¶30

¶31

The petitioner was served with a notice dated 29^th November 2010 which is styled as a ‘Final Notice’. By the said notice, the petitioner was called upon to pay the arrears and interest as specified in the said notice. Annexure-D shows that the amount was deposited by the petitioner on 5^th May 2011. On 21^st February 2019, the impugned notice was issued by the Deputy Director, the Department of Mines and Geology, Ramanagara to the petitioner demanding the total arrears including interest to the extent of Rs.10,31,265/-.

¶32

The challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the said demand notice dated 21^st February 2019.

¶33

The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that after final notice of demand was issued on 29^th November 2010 and after the petitioner having paid the amount demanded, there was no occasion for the respondent to have served one more notice dated 21^st February 2019 demanding arrears up to 31^st March 2017. He submitted that there is no allegation made in the impugned notice dated 21^st February 2019 that after the final notice was issued, the petitioner has indulged in illegal quarrying operations. He

¶34

¶35

submitted that no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before making the impugned demand.

¶36

The learned High Court Government Pleader

¶37

appearing for the respondents contended that the impugned demand is legal and proper as there is a power to make such a demand, if illegal quarrying activity continues.

¶38

We have considered the submissions.

¶39

The notice dated 29^th November 2010 (Annexure-C)

¶40

described as a final notice of demand, refers to the termination of lease. From Annexure-D, it appears that the amount as demanded was paid by the petitioner. Perusal of the impugned notice shows there are no allegations therein that though the quarrying lease was not subsisting, the petitioner has carried out any quarrying operation.

¶41

Moreover, the demand by the impugned notice has been made without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

¶42

Thus, the impugned demand is made in breach of principles of natural justice. If there is due and payable any

¶43

¶44

amount by the petitioner, a show cause notice ought to have been issued to the petitioner giving the particulars of the amount due and payable and only after giving an opportunity of filing a reply that the impugned demand could have been made.

¶45

Only on the ground of the breach of the principles of natural justice, we are setting aside the impugned demand and accordingly, we pass the following order:-

¶46

i) The impugned notice dated 21^st February 2019 is set aside;

¶47

ii) It will be open for the respondents to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner giving all material particulars of the demand. If such a show cause notice is issued, appropriate orders shall be passed thereon within a period of three months from the date of service of show cause notice to the petitioner after giving an opportunity to file reply and of being heard;

¶48

¶49

iii) The writ petition is partly allowed on the above

¶50

terms;

¶51

iv) There is no order as to costs.

¶52

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

PYR

Sri. K. Rajendra v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. K. Rajendra v. the State of Karnataka

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

K S Anil Vs M/S. Yuktee Patel Transport Private Limited

Sri. S K Pawar Vs the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation

Smt Radha Vs the Tahasildar

Mr S M Shivakumar Vs State of Karnataka

The Residents Neighbours of Vs Quipo Telecom Infrastructure Ltd.

National Enviornment Care Federation Vs State of Karnataka