Allowed

V T Dinesh Kumar v. the Senior Geologist (M)

Karnataka HC1 Sept 2021WP/14463/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Bench quashed the recovery action taken by the Senior Geologist for unpaid mining royalty, treating the impugned notice as a show-cause notice that must be preceded by an opportunity of hearing, citing a coordinate bench order.

What did the court decide?

The notice treated as show-cause notice; petitioner granted 30 days to reply; coercive action stayed pending reply.

V T Dinesh Kumar Vs the Senior Geologist (M) — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.14463/2021 (GM-MM/S)

¶8

BETWEEN

¶9

V.T. DINESH KUMAR S/O V.M. THIMMAIAH AGED 54 YEARS PUMPHOUSE ROAD, KUSHALNAGAR KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 234 (BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR K.B., ADV.)

¶10

... PETITIONER

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST (M) DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY NO.4, GAGANACHUMBI JODI ROAD KUVEMPUNAGAR MYSURU – 570 023

¶13

... RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI S.S.MAHENDRA, AGA)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING NOTICE-CUM—ORDER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT IN NO.GaBhuE/HiBhuMy/NOTICE/2021-22/272 DATED 01.07.2021 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner before this Court has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the notice/order dated 01.07.2021 passed by the respondent-Senior

¶20

Geologist/respondent.

¶21

The petitioner's contention is that the respondent has issued the aforesaid notice/order directing the petitioner to pay dues relating to royalty amounting to Rs.92,94,807/-.

¶22

Learned Counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, has drawn attention of this Court towards the order dated 30.08.2018 passed in W.P.No.10823/2018 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in similar circumstances. The order passed by this Court on 30.08.2018 is reproduced as under:

¶23

"The petitioner, said to be the leaseholder in respect of QL No.41 in Survey No.492/BP1 measuring 2 acres, has preferred this writ petition on being aggrieved of the notice-cum-order dated 05.12.2016 (Annexure-G), as issued by the respondent No.4, wherein a demand is made for a sum of Rs.13,80,776/- towards arrears of royalty/stable rent.

¶24

It is, inter alia, contended on behalf of the petitioner that the lease to carry on the quarrying activities was executed on 13.09.2011; and the demand for royalty for the year 2015-16is contrary to Rule 44 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2016. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned notice-cum-order has been issued without

¶25

¶26

any prior notice to the petitioner. It has also been pointed out that a few other petitions of the similar nature, including W.P.No.29222/2017 are pending, whereinthis Court has granted stay against coercive action for recovery of such an amount of penalty.

¶27

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 him to remit royalty/stable rent by way of the impugned notice-cumorder dated 05.12.2016, the petitioner was not served with a prior notice on the allegations sought to be made against him.

¶28

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

¶29

In our view, the interest of justice shall be served if the said notice-cum-order dated 05.12.2016 is treated to be a show cause notice and the petitioner is permitted to submit his specific reply to the allegations made therein, while leaving it open for the authorities to pass appropriate speaking order after reply/objections of the petitioner. The petitioner is granted four weeks’ time to file his reply/objections.

¶30

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.

¶31

It is also made clear that pendency of such proceedings for decision on the petitioner’s reply/objections, shall not be of any impediment in the authorities taking other steps/proceedings as regards the application for renewal of the lease in question in accordance with law.

¶32

The petition stands disposed of with the observations, directions and requirements aforesaid.

¶33

No costs."

¶34

¶35

In the light of the aforesaid order passed in an

¶36

identical case, the notice/order dated 01.07.2021 shall be treated as a show cause notice and the petitioner is permitted to submit his reply within 30 days from today. The respondent shall be free to pass an appropriate order within four weeks thereafter. Till the final order is passed, the respondent is directed not to take any coercive action against the petitioner.

¶37

With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed

¶38

of.

¶39

No order as to costs.

¶40

SD/ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶41

SD/-

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

V T Dinesh Kumar v. the Senior Geologist (M)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V T Dinesh Kumar v. the Senior Geologist (M)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Parameshvaraiah P M Vs State of Karnataka

The Central Provident Fund Commissioner Vs H S Prakash

The Bangadi Co. Operative Agriculture Society Vs Sri Balakrishna

M/S People for Animals Mysuru Animal Welfare Organisation Vs State of Karnataka

B v Mahesh Rai Vs the Sendior Geologist (M)

Prakash Vs the State of Karnataka