Partly allowed

M/S Abhinaya Trading Corporation v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Dec 2020WP/11333/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed a penalty notice issued under the Minor Mineral Concession Rules for violating natural justice by failing to grant a personal hearing. The court directed the authority to hear the petitioner, make a final order on liability within three months, and refund any undue penalties within one month if no penalty or a lesser amount is found due.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice quashed; personal hearing directed; final order on penalty liability to be passed within 3 months; refund of excess penalty to be made within 1 month if due.

M/S Abhinaya Trading Corporation Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

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

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.11333 OF 2020 (GM-MM-S)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S ABHINAYA TRADING CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS GPA HOLDER SRI S.G.CHANDRAMOULI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O S.GANGADHARASWAMY “SRI VIGNESHWARA” 8^TH CROSS, S.S.PURAM TUMKUR – 572 102

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT.SHARADA N, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS

¶13

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPT. OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES (MSME, MINES & TEXTILES) VIKASA SOUDHA DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI

¶14

BANGALORE – 560 001

¶15

THE DIRECTOR

¶16

DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN

¶17

RACE COURSE ROAD

¶18

BANGALORE – 560 001

¶19

DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY TUMKUR – 572 104

¶20

... RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI I.THARANATH POOJARY, AGA)

¶22

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE AN ORDER, DIRECTION, WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING NOTICE DATED 04.09.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY 3^RD RESPONDENT AND ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

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

¶27

On 29^th January 2004, a quarrying lease was executed in favour of the petitioner. The challenge in this petition is to the notice at Annexure-A. By the said notice, a penalty of Rs.2,74,981/- was ordered to be paid by the petitioner. The demand was made in purported exercise of the powers under Section 43(6) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 as amended.

¶28

Now, as per the memo filed by the petitioner, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner and under protest, the petitioner has deposited with the third respondent a demand draft dated 27^th November 2020 for a sum of Rs.2,74,988/-

¶29

¶30

Now, that the entire amount has been secured, it will be appropriate if the concerned respondents give an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate order regarding the liability of the petitioner to pay the penalty.

¶31

By the letter dated 9^th July 2020 (Annexure-C), the petitioner was called upon to submit its explanation. The petitioner submitted explanation which is at Annexure-D. Since the demand is for penalty, the respondents will have to comply with the principles of natural justice by giving personal hearing to the petitioner. If ultimately, it is held that the petitioner is not

¶32

liable to pay any penalty or is liable to pay a penalty in the amount which is less than Rs.2,74,988/-, the third respondent will have to make necessary refund to the petitioner.

¶33

6. Accordingly, we pass the following order.

¶34

(i) The impugned notice at Annexure-A is hereby quashed and set aside only on the ground that personal hearing was not given to the petitioner;

¶35

(ii) We direct the third respondent to give an opportunity of being personally heard to the petitioner on the basis of the notice at Annexure-C;

¶36

¶37

(iii) Appropriate order shall be passed by the third respondent within a maximum period of three months from today;

¶38

(iv) If while passing the order, the third respondent is of the opinion that the petitioner is not liable to pay any penalty or is liable to pay penalty in the amount which is less than Rs.2,74,988/-, the third respondent shall make necessary refund to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of which the order is passed;

¶39

(v) We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the merits of the controversy and all contentions are left open to be decided by the Competent Authority;

¶40

(vi) The petition is disposed of on the above directions;

¶41

(vii) The pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of.

¶42

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

AHB

M/S Abhinaya Trading Corporation v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Abhinaya Trading Corporation v. 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

Mr. K Jayaram Vs Devika Devi

Rev Mathew George M Vs Bishop Rev Namdeo Laxman Karkare

Sri C.G. Parameshwariah Vs Sri G. Sridhar

Sri K Kantharaju Vs the Principal Secretary

Sri B a Jaganathaiah Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka

M N Murthy Vs the State of Karnataka