Partly allowed

Sri K S Aravind v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Oct 2021WP/8911/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Banking-and-recovery The High Court of Karnataka held that an impugned demand notice for liquidated damages cannot be enforced until the authority considers the petitioner's explanation regarding waiver of minimum production requirements.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents to consider the petitioner's representation within two months; impugned demand notice restrained for one month from the date of service of the decision order.

Sri K S Aravind Vs State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 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. 8911 OF 2020(GM-MM-S)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. K S ARAVIND SON OF SANKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, PARTNER, SRI MANJUNATHA ASSOCIATES, KANASUNILAYA, HASUGAVALLI, BALLLUPETE, SAKALESHPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT 573214

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI.PRAKASH B S, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES (MSME AND MINES), VIKASA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001

¶14

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560001

¶16

THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, GRAMAPANCHAYATHI ROAD, SATHYAMANGALA, HASSAN-573201

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.S.S.MAHENDRA, AGA)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS IN PERTAINING TO THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD 30.10.2019, PERUSE THE SAME AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, HASSAN DEMANDING A SUM OF RS.1,31,31,961/- VIDE ANNX-A.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM J ., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The captioned writ petition is filed questioning the

¶23

impugned demand notice issued by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-A demanding a sum of Rs.1,31,31,961/-.

¶24

The facts leading to the case are as under:

¶25

¶26

The case of the petitioner is that he was granted quarrying lease bearing quarrying lease No.QL.No.HMG-S 012 for extraction of ordinary sand for a period of five years which commenced from 7th March 2018 over an extent of 15.00 acres of land bearing Survey No.54, 57, 80, 71 and 82 of Malali Village, Sakaleshpura Taluk, Hassan District. The respondent No.3 by impugned demand notice as per Annexure-A has called upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,31,31,961/- towards value of 989 metric tones which is towards 50% of the target projected in the environment clearance.

¶27

The petitioner on receipt of demand notice has offered an explanation by letter dated 27.3.2019 as per Annexure-D to the writ petition. The grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that the authority without considering the explanation offered by the petitioner and without deciding in terms of explanation offered as to whether

¶28

¶29

petitioner is entitled for waiver of requirement of minimum production and dispatch has issued the impugned notice.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶31

learned AGA.

¶32

It is stated across Bar that the controversy in the

¶33

present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by a Co-Ordinate Bench in W.P.No.1720/2021 a/w W.P.No.1721/2021 disposed of on 5.3.2021.

¶34

We have perused the material on record and also

¶35

the judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment cited supra.

¶36

On perusal of clause (iv) of sub-rule(1) of Rule 31W of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, we would find that proviso clearly contemplates that where the lessee fails to achieve actual minimum production which is beyond his control and if an application is submitted offering

¶37

¶38

an explanation, the authority after giving an opportunity of hearing may waive the requirement of minimum production. On examination of the records, we would find that the said exercise is not done by the State Government. Therefore, in the light of the principles laid down by the Co-Ordinate Bench in the aforesaid judgment, we hold that the impugned demand notice as per Annexure-A cannot be enforced unless the State Government decides the application/letter dated 27.3.2019 submitted by the petitioner.

¶39

For the foregoing reasons, we pass the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

(i)The concerned respondents are hereby directed to consider the representation/letter dated 27.03.2019 as per Annexure-D.

¶42

(ii)An appropriate decision shall be taken on the application within a maximum period of two months from today after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is needless to say that in the event the order is passed by

¶43

¶44

the authorities, the same shall be communicated to the petitioner.

¶45

(iii)The impugned demand at Annexure-A shall not be enforced by the respondents for a period of one month from the date on which the order as aforesaid is served upon the

¶46

petitioner.

¶47

Sd/ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

*alb/-.

Sri K S Aravind v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K S Aravind 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

M/S B Eshwara Stone Crusher Vs the Deputy Director

Smt. M Shashikala Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri a C Shivalinge Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka

North Kanara District Forest Land Rights Vs the State of Karnataka

Viswapriya Investors and Depositors Welfare Association Karnataka Vs State of Karnataka

Jayaprakash Shetty Vs State of Karnataka