Partly allowed

Sri Shreesha S Udupa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Feb 2020WP/299/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka set aside impugned orders cancelling quarrying leases for breach of natural justice due to lack of show cause notice and hearing. Court directed competent authority to issue proper notice before determining the lease under the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 17th December 2019 are set aside for breach of natural justice; the competent authority is directed to issue a notice under Rule 6(3) of the said Rules.

Sri Shreesha S Udupa Vs the State of Karnataka — Mining and Natural Resources | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 303/2020 (GM- MMS)

¶9

CONNECTED WITH

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO. 299/2020 (GM-MMS)

¶11

IN W.P.NO.303/2020

¶12

BETWEEN

¶13

SRI NARAYANA S. G. S/O GANAPATHI RAO AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS KARAGADI, HANIYA POST HOSANAGARA TALUK – 577 418 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

(BY SRI RAMESHCHANDRA, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001

¶18

THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST (MINERAL) DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY AC OFFICE BUILDING, 2^ND FLOOR SHIVAMOGGA – 577 201

¶19

¶20

DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST SAGARA DIVISION SAGARA – 577 401

¶21

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA – 577 201

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI Y. H. VIJAYAKUMAR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A DATED 17^TH DECEMBER 2019 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND ETC.

¶25

IN W.P.NO.299/2020

¶26

BETWEEN

¶27

SRI SHREESHA S UDUPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS S/O SRINIVASA UDUPA KARAGADI, HANIYA POST HOSANAGARA TALUK – 577 418 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT

¶28

…PETITIONER

¶29

(BY SRI RAMESHCHANDRA, ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND

¶31

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001

¶32

THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST (MINERAL) DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY AC OFFICE BUILDING, 2^ND FLOOR SHIVAMOGGA – 577 201

¶33

¶34

DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST SAGARA DIVISION SAGARA – 577 401

¶35

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA – 577 201

¶36

…RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SRI Y. H. VIJAYAKUMAR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

¶38

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A DATED 17^TH DECEMBER 2019 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND ETC.

¶39

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

¶40

ORDER

¶41

Issue notice to the respondents. The learned Additional Government Advocate waives service for the respondents.

¶42

Considering the narrow controversy involved in the

¶43

petitions, the same are taken up for final disposal immediately.

¶44

In W.P.No.299/2020, a quarrying lease was

¶45

executed in favour of the petitioner on 28^th December 2018 under

¶46

the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short ‘the said Rules’). By the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 17^th December 2019, the said lease has been cancelled. There

¶47

is a communication issued on 18^th September 2019 prior to

¶48

¶49

Annexure-A addressed by the Deputy Conservator of Forest to

¶50

the Senior Geologist of the State by which, a request was made to cancel the lease.

¶51

Even the learned Additional Government Advocate,

¶52

on instructions, does not dispute the factual position that a show cause notice was not issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned order dated 17^th December 2019.

¶53

In W.P.No.303/2020, the facts are similar. Even in

¶54

this case, the order of cancellation of lease was issued (Annexure-A) on 17^th December 2019 on the basis of the communication dated 18^th September 2019 issued prior to Annexure-A addressed by the Deputy Conservator of Forest to

¶55

the Senior Geologist of the State by which, a request was made to cancel the lease.

¶56

Even in this case, the learned Additional

¶57

Government Advocate, on instructions, does not dispute the factual position that a show cause notice was not issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned order dated 17^th December 2019.

¶58

¶59

The power to determine the lease granted under the

¶60

said Rules is specifically conferred by sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the said Rules. The condition precedent for the cancellation of lease is firstly that a notice is required to be issued by the Competent Authority requiring the lessee to remedy the alleged breaches committed by him within a period of thirty days and if the breaches are not remedied within a stipulated period, the Competent Authority may determine the lease after giving an opportunity of being heard to the lessee.

¶61

In these two petitions, both the conditions precedent

¶62

are not satisfied. Hence, the impugned orders dated 17^th December 2019 (Annexure-A to both the petitions) are contrary to sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the said Rules and in breach of elementary principles of natural justice. It is not necessary to set aside the recommendation of the Forest department inasmuch as the decision to determine the lease has to taken by the Competent Authority by exercising a power under sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the said Rules. Accordingly, we pass the following order:

¶63

(i) The impugned orders dated 17^th December 2019 (Annexure-A to both the petitions) are set aside only on

¶64

¶65

the ground of breach of principles of natural justice;

¶66

(ii) This order will not preclude the Competent Authority

¶67

from issuing a notice under sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the said Rules and from initiating appropriate action in

¶68

accordance with law against the petitioner;

¶69

(iii) As observed earlier, the action of determination of the lease cannot be taken without giving an opportunity to the petitioners of being personally heard;

¶70

(iv) Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of.

¶71

(v) We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on

¶72

the merits of the controversy.

¶73

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶74

Sd/JUDGE

¶75

Sri Shreesha S Udupa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shreesha S Udupa 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

Sri Paramesh R Vs Smt Lakshmi Devi

Sri M G Narayanaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Isak Usman Akodi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Yankangouda Vs the State of Karnataka

Cauvery Janma Bhoomi Trust (R) Vs State of Karnataka

New Baldwin High School Vs the State of Karnataka