Partly allowed

Pnc Infratech Limited v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2023WP/2867/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a penalty demand notice for alleged violations during a quarry lease. The High Court observed that the authorities had directed a drone survey but failed to conduct it or produce results. It remanded the matter, requiring the survey to be completed or the demand notice to be revised based on survey findings.

What did the court decide?

Impugned demand notice kept in abeyance; authorities directed to complete drone survey within four weeks if not already done and determine penalty de novo.

Pnc Infratech Limited Vs the State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:39907-DB WP No. 2867 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 2867 OF 2023 (GM-MM_S)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

PNC INFRATECH LIMITED, OFFICE AT SURVEY NO.52/2 TO 52/16, CHALLAKERE - HIRIYUR ROAD PROJECT, GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE, K.M.STONE 385 OF NH -150A, YERABALLI POST, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT -577 545, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANGER, SRI. SANDEEP AIYAPPA KALIYANDA, S/O LATE K. S. AIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

Digitally signed by GAYATHRI P G Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

(BY SRI. BHAT GANAPATHY NARAYAN, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY , VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI , BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶16

THE SECRETARY, COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:39907-DB WP No. 2867 of 2023

¶19

VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶20

THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, KHANIJA BHAVAN, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶21

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY , CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. S.S. MAHENDRA, PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY APPROPRIATE ORDER BY THE QUASHING THE IMPUGNED DEMAND NOTICE DATED 26.04.2022, BEARING SL.NoGA.BHU.EI/U.NI.CHU/KA.GA.GHU/590/LE.TH/2021-22/102, ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-N IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Petitioner who holds a quarry lease is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the penalty demand notice dated 26.04.2022 issued by the 4^th respondent –Deputy

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:39907-DB WP No. 2867 of 2023

¶29

Director of Mines & Geology Department, a copy whereof is at Annexure-N whereby he has been directed to remit a sum of Rs.23,47,13,703.00 within thirty days. This levy is made for the alleged loss to the exchequer inter alia for rendering the subject quarry lease dysfunctional. There is allegation of violation of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 inasmuch as the transportation of the mineral has happened sans transit permits. The breakup of the levy items has been furnished in the Audit Report for the financial year in question.

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks to falter the impugned levy of penalty pointing out petitioner’s reply submitted against the levy and demand notice dated 26.04.2022 wherein he had raised an objection as to the absence of Drone Survey in the fitness of things. He also points out the Work Order dated 24.11.2022, a copy whereof is at Annexure-R whereby the 3^rd respondent –Director of Mines & Geology Department had instructed for undertaking the Drone Survey of the

¶31

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:39907-DB WP No. 2867 of 2023

¶32

area in question. The counsel submits that till this exercise is undertaken and the impact of its outcome on the alleged liability of the petitioner is adjudged, the impugned demand notice cannot be sustained. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent – authorities vehemently opposes the petition making submission in justification of the impugned demand notice and the factors on which it has been constructed.

¶33

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, we are inclined to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as pursuant to objection of the petitioner to the demand raised, the Director of Mines & Geology, vide Work Order dated 24.11.2022, had instructed the officials to undertake a Drone Survey of the area concerned. No material is produced by the Authorities to demonstrate that such an exercise was undertaken and its outcome has not altered the determination of levy of penalty and the consequent

¶34

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:39907-DB WP No. 2867 of 2023

¶35

demand notice. Thus, there is an error apparent on the face of record warranting our interference.

¶36

In the above circumstances, this petition is disposed off with the following directions:

¶37

i) In case the Drone Survey is not conducted pursuant to Work Order dated 24.11.2022, the same be accomplished by the concerned authority within a period of four weeks. Petitioner shall assist and cooperate in the said exercise by providing copies of requisite documents or by supplying necessary material on instruction by the authorities concerned.

¶38

(ii) If the Drone Survey is already accomplished, a fresh demand notice accompanied by a copy of the Survey Report be supplied to the petitioner within one week and the petitioner may file his reply/response to the same within two weeks next following.

¶39

(iii) The jurisdictional authority shall duly consider petitioner’s reply, if any, and determine de novo the levy and penalty in accordance with law.

¶40

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:39907-DB WP No. 2867 of 2023

¶41

(iv) Till this exercise is completed, the demand notice challenged in the petition shall be kept in abeyance. It is needless to state that this demand notice may undergo variation depending upon the Drone Survey Report and petitioner’s response to the same.

Costs made easy.

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE

GPG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27 CT: BHK

Pnc Infratech Limited v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pnc Infratech Limited 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. H. S. Mallikarjunappa Vs Mr. G. Kumar Naik

Sri G S Gopala Vs the Senior Regional Manager

Hema Naidu Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Pnc Infratech Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Doddannavar Brothers Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Kavitha R Vs State of Karnataka