Disposed

M/S Sanwariya Groups v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Jan 2021WP/50459/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged a demand notice for penal royalty. The High Court dispensed with the withdrawn notice, directed deposit of the proposed amount, and ordered disposal of the pending mining permit application within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the withdrawn demand notice; direction to deposit amount; direction to decide permit application within four weeks.

M/S Sanwariya Groups Vs the State of Karnataka — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 50459 OF 2019 (GM-MM-S)

¶9

BETWEEN :

¶10

M/s SANWARIYA GROUPS No.40/D, 5^TH MAIN YADAVAGIRI MYSORE-570 020 PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI N.RAKESHKUMAR AGED 32 YEARS SON OF NARAYANASWAMY

¶11

… PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SHRI PRAKASH B.S., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT (MSME & MINES), VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001.

¶15

THE DIRECTOR/COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVANA, R.C.ROAD BANGALORE-560 001.

¶16

¶17

DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY No.316 & 317, III FLOOR DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEX CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571 313.

¶18

4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & CHAIRMAN DISTRICT SAND MONITORING COMMITTEE CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT CHAMARAJANAGAR-571 313.

¶19

… RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SHRI I.TARANATH POOJARY, AGA)

¶21

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT QUASHING THE DEMAND NOTICE/ORDER DATED 6.9.2019 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY, CHAMARAJANAGAR, CALLING UPON THE PETITONER TO REMIT PENALRY OF Rs.72,43,875/- EQUAL TO FIVE TIMES THE AMOUNT OF ROYALTY PAYABLE AS PER SCHEDULE-2 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A, AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The memo filed by the learned counsel appearing for

¶26

the petitioner is taken on record. The petitioner shall deposit the amount as specified in the memo with the third

¶27

¶28

respondent who will accept the same without prejudice to the contention of the respondents that the petitioner is liable to pay a higher amount.

¶29

The learned Additional Government Advocate, on instructions, states that without prejudice to the right of the respondents to enforce the obligations of the petitioner under clause (ix) of Rule 31-Y of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short, “the said Rules of 1994”), the respondents will withdraw the impugned order at Annexure-A.

¶30

As the impugned order is withdrawn, nothing survives in this petition and accordingly, we dispose of the same. However, withdrawal of the impugned order will not prevent the State Government from initiating an appropriate proceeding in accordance with law against the petitioner by invoking the provision of clause (ix) of Rule 31-Y of the said Rules of 1994. We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the question whether the respondents are entitled to invoke the said provision.

¶31

¶32

Subject to what is observed and directed above, the petition is disposed of. If the application made by the petitioner to the third respondent for grant of mineral dispatch permit is pending, the same shall be decided in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from today.

¶33

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

vgh*

M/S Sanwariya Groups v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sanwariya Groups 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

Smt. Devamma Vs the Tahasildar

Sri R Sheik Ahamed Vs Sri L K Atheeq IAS

Smt. v. Pushpa Vs Sri. H. R. Mahadev

Ramamurthy v S Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Errol Fernandes Vs Union of India

Smt Lakshmidevamma Vs State of Karnataka