Disposed

Moiddin Thousif v. the Commissioner of Mines and Geology

Karnataka HC22 Apr 2021WP/5408/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, while hearing a writ petition challenging a demand notice for royalty and penalty, directed the authority to treat the notice as a show-cause notice. The petition was disposed of with directions to allow the petitioner to reply and the authority to pass an order after a hearing.

What did the court decide?

The demand notice treated as a show-cause notice; petitioner given six weeks to reply; authority directed to pass order after hearing within four months; stay on recovery.

Moiddin Thousif Vs the Commissioner of Mines… — Mining and Natural Resources | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.5408 OF 2021 (GM-MM-S)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

MOIDDIN THOUSIF S/O P.B. AHAMMAD AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS M/S P.B. GRANITE INDUSTRIES VEERAKAMBA, ARTHADKA NARKODI, VITTLA-574222 BANTWAL TALUK REPRESENTED BY GPA

¶9

SRI. PRADEEP.M.S. S/O SREEKANTAN NAIR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS LOTUS, HOSADURGA KANHANGAD-671315 KASARGOD DISTRICT ...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. K. CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADVOCATE-VC)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560001

¶13

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR MINES & GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT 1^ST FLOOR, JUGUL TOWERS KADRI, MALLIKATTE MANGALURU-575002, D.K. … RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, AGA-PH)

¶15

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 24.2.2020 ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Issue notice to the respondents.

¶20

The learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice

¶21

for the respondents.

¶22

The petition is forthwith taken up for final disposal.

¶23

The petitioner has been granted quarrying lease for ten

¶24

years with effect from 11^th March 2016. The challenge in this petition is to the demand notice at Annexure-B dated 24^th February 2020 making a demand for royalty and penalty.

¶25

The main ground of challenge is that the demand has been made without following the principles of natural justice and even a show cause notice has not been served before making the demand.

¶26

¶27

The learned Additional Government Advocate states that

¶28

as the impugned demand notice does not reflect that any show cause was served prior to making the demand, an opportunity may be granted to the petitioner of being heard.

¶29

Hence, we dispose of the petition by passing the following:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

i) We direct that the demand notice dated 24^th February 2021 shall be treated as a show cause notice and within a period of six weeks from today, the petitioner shall file a reply to the show cause notice;

¶32

ii) The concerned Authority after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner shall pass appropriate order within a period of four months from today;

¶33

iii) Needless to add that no recovery proceedings shall be initiated on the basis of Annexure-B to the petition, unless the final order is passed in terms of the above directions;

¶34

¶35

iv) All contentions are left open to be decided by the competent Authority.

¶36

v) No order as to costs.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

Moiddin Thousif v. the Commissioner of Mines and Geology

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moiddin Thousif v. the Commissioner of Mines and Geology

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri M Devendra Vs Sri Amarnathreddy

M/S Marvel Infrabuild Private Limited Vs Mrs.Muneera Ghouse

Capacite Infraprojects Ltd. Vs M/S. Siddha Sheka Developers LLP

Sri. K K Yusuff Vs Sri. Shivayogi Hiremath

Mr Franky D Souza Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Sathyanarayana Vs the Additional Chief Secretary