Allowed

M/S Bahrat Parikh and Co. v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Nov 2021WP/9086/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner challenged a notice issued by the Senior Geologist, Davanagere, directing them to stop mining activities. The court found the Senior Geologist lacked jurisdiction to issue such a notice, as the power lies with the Director, Mines and Geology Department.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notice dated 13.02.2019 issued by the Senior Geologist, Davanagere was quashed. Liberty was granted to the competent authority to pass a fresh order after serving notice to the petitioner

M/S Bahrat Parikh and Co. Vs the State of… — Mining and Natural Resources | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.9086 OF 2019 (GM-MMS)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/S BAHRAT PARIKH AND CO A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 27, MEGHDOOT 95-B, MARINE DRIVE, MUMBAI - 400 002

¶10

AND BRANCH OFFICE AT NO.703/179, SRI SHANKARA KRUPA 4^TH MAIN , 5^TH CROSS ANJANEYA LAYOUT DAVANAGERE - 577 004 REPRESENTED BY ITS POA HOLDER MR. MUKESH GUPTA

¶11

... PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI K.ARVIND KAMATH, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI: PRASHANTH POPAT AND SRI NIKIT BALA, ADVOCATES)

¶13

AND:

¶14

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES (MINES & MSME) VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001

¶15

2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANGERE DAVANGERE - 577 005

¶16

¶17

3 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIOENER DAVANGERE TALUK DAVANGERE - 577 005

¶18

4 . THE TAHSILDAR JAGALUR TALUK DAVANGERE - 577 005

¶19

5 . THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DAVANGERE

¶20

DAVANGERE DISTRICT - 577 005

¶21

... RESPONDENTS

¶22

(SRI S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5)

¶23

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 13.02.2019 ISSUED BY THE 5^TH RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-X) HOLDING IT IS ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Heard Sri K.Arvind Kamath, learned Senior Counsel

¶28

assisted by Sri Prashanth Popat, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶29

Under challenge is the notice dated 13.02.2019 issued by respondent No.5 vide Annexure-X.

¶30

¶31

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned notice is issued by respondent No.5 - Senior Geologist, Davanagere directing the petitioner to stop the mining activities until further orders. The main contention of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No.5, being Senior Geologist, is not conferred with any power to issue the impugned notice. It is without jurisdiction and competence. The power to issue such notice is with the Director, Mines and Geology Department.

¶32

On the last date, the Court vide order dated 28.10.2021 had directed the Additional Government Advocate to seek instructions on the point in question.

¶33

Learned Additional Government Advocate, on the basis of the instructions, admits that the respondent No.5 - Senior Geologist, Davanagere has no power to issue the impugned notice. It is submitted that liberty may be given to the respondents to pass a fresh order after giving notice to the petitioner.

¶34

¶35

It is to be noted that under Section 13 of the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, the Central Government has been empowered to frame the Rules in respect of minerals. The Central Government vide notification dated 04.03.2016 has framed the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 (for short, "the said Rules"). Under Rule 22 of the said Rules, in the event of termination of a mining lease under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 4A or sub-rules (8), (9) and sub-rule (10) of Rule 12 or sub-rule (11) of Rule 23, Rule 24 or sub-rule (2) of Rule 61 of the said Rules, the State Government has been given the right to enforce the performance security of the lessee to carry out protective, reclamation and rehabilitation measures in the area.

¶36

Be that as it may, there is no dispute that termination of lease can be done. The only contention is that the impugned notice has not been issued by the competent authority. Since learned Additional Government Advocate has informed that it is the Director, Mines and Geology Department who is the competent authority, we need not

¶37

¶38

decide the competence of an authority who can pass the impugned notice.

¶39

Writ petition is allowed. The impugned notice dated 13.02.2019 vide Annexure-X is hereby quashed. Liberty is given to the competent authority to pass a fresh order after giving notice to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE

AHB

M/S Bahrat Parikh and Co. v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Bahrat Parikh and Co. 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

Mr. R. Venkataramana Vs State of Karnataka

Smt.Indumathi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri D Basavaraj Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S. Karunamaya Construction Vs State of Karnataka

Khaleel Ahamad Vs the Senior Geologist

Sri Dinesh Kallahalli Vs State of Karnataka