Dismissed

Sri Manjunath Yellappa Timmapur v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC26 Oct 2023WP/6136/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenging a demand notice for royalty and penalty was dismissed. The Court held that the Department correctly quantified excess mining and that statutory remedies under Rule 55 and Section 152 CPC apply for disputes regarding quantum, which are not suitable for judicial review.

What did the court decide?

The prayers to set aside and quash the Impugned Demand and Revisional Orders were dismissed.

Sri Manjunath Yellappa Timmapur Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:38020-DB WP No. 6136 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 6136 OF 2023 (GM-MM_S)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI.MANJUNATH YELLAPPA TIMMAPUR, S/O YELLAPPA THIMMAPUR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NAVANAGAR, BEHIND POLICE STATION, SHIGGAON TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT – 581 205.

¶11

Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAKASH B S.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, (MSME & MINES),VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶13

(BY SRI. PRAKASH B S.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE VOMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & CHAIRMAN DISTRICT SAND MONITORING COMMITTEE, HAVERI DISTRICT, HAVERI – 581 110.

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:38020-DB WP No. 6136 of 2023

¶18

THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR & REVISIONAL AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, NORTH ZONE, BUDA BUILDING, BELLARI – 585 102.

¶19

THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY, G G MAGAVI CHAMBERS, 2^ND FLOOR, P B ROAD, HAVERI – 581 110.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

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

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 29.04.2022 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, HAVERI BEARING No.GABUEE/HEEBUHA/NOTICE/2022-23-282 DEMANDING A SUM OF Rs.1,18,63,056/- PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE A PERSUE THE SAME AND GRANT THE FOLLOWING RELIEF TO THE PETITIONER AND I) BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED DEMAND NOTICE DATED 29.04.2022 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, HAVERI BEARING No.GABUEE/HEEBUHA/NOTICE/2022-23/282 DEMANDING A SUM OF Rs.1,18,63,056/- PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶23

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

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:38020-DB WP No. 6136 of 2023

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Petitioner, a mining lease operator is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the Demand Notice dated 29.04.2022 issued by the 5^th respondent - Senior Geologist at Annexure-A and the Revisional Order dated 15.12.2022 issued by the 4^th respondent – Additional Director-cum-Revisional Authority at Annex-B. The net effect of what is impugned is to compel the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,18,63,056/- by way of royalty and penalty.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the impugned demand and the levy are incompetent; the answering respondents have ignored the payments made by the petitioner by way of royalty since January 2019; there is absolutely no material to assume that the petitioner has transported an additional quantity of sand i.e. 9788 Metric Tonnes unauthorisedly. The impugned orders are made contrary to the principles of natural justice. Even, the penalty is far in excess of what is

¶28

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:38020-DB WP No. 6136 of 2023

¶29

permissible under the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994. According to him, these lapses do constitute errors apparent on the face of the record and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set at naught.

¶30

Learned Principal Government Advocate appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the writ petition making submission in justification of the impugned levy & demand; he contends that due opportunity was given to the petitioner and the impugned proceedings have been drawn with his participation. At no point of time, petitioner has made payment of royalty in respect of the quantity of mineral in question. The Authorities having considered all aspects of the matter have rightly levied the royalty and penalty, which would go to the State Exchequer. If there is any mistake in the quantification of the penalty or royalty amount, it is open to the petitioner to seek remedy under Rule 55 of the 1994 Rules. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

¶31

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:38020-DB WP No. 6136 of 2023

¶32

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, we decline indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the submission of learned Principal Government Advocate. Firstly, the Authorities after conducting due inspection and vigilance in discharge of their official duties have quantified excess mineral transported by the petitioner and i.e. 9788 Metric Tonnes. Despite vociferous arguments, petitioner is not in a position to demonstrate any error in the process of this quantification and we cannot undertake a deeper examination of the same in the judicial review under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶33

The vehement submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that his client has already made payments has not been vouched by placing requisite material on record, despite granting opportunity twice for this purpose. Certain copies of statutory forms now placed on record with a memo are not reflected in the original file at the hands of the learned Principal Government Advocate.

¶34

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:38020-DB WP No. 6136 of 2023

¶35

After all, payments of the kind are always made by bank cheques and the particulars thereof have not been furnished by the petitioner. The repeated assertion that a person has made the payment would not come to his aid in the absence of evidentiary records.

¶36

The last submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the levy of penalty is far in excess of what is permitted under the provisions of 1994 Rules does not merit deeper examination at our hands. Learned Principal Government Advocate is more than justified in drawing our attention to the provisions of Rule 55 which is structured in line with Section 152 of CPC, 1908; this provision provides remedy at the departmental level and the petitioner can have recourse to the same. In that connection, all contentions are kept open.

¶37

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that his client had no reasonable opportunity of participation in the proceedings is liable to be rejected inasmuch as several notices were sent to him and he failed

¶38

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:38020-DB WP No. 6136 of 2023

¶39

to show cause against the proposal for the levy. Even the Revisional Authority having looked into all aspects of the matter has affirmed the demand. Such statutory orders cannot be deeply examined by us as if we are a Court of appeal. It hardly needs to be stated that the focal point writ jurisdiction is the decision making process and not its end product, namely the decision itself vide SUSHIL KUMAR vs. STATE OF HARYANA, (2022) 3 SCC 203 .

¶40

In the above circumstances and with the above observations, this petition being devoid of merits is liable to be and accordingly, dismissed, costs having been made easy.

¶41

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

Snb,AHB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Sri Manjunath Yellappa Timmapur v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Manjunath Yellappa Timmapur 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.Narayanaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

The Management of Express Vs Bangalore Newspaper Employees Union

Smt K T Kamalamma Vs Smt Sashikala Wodeyar

Shri a. Lakshmipathy Vs Smt. Vanditha Sharma

M P Lakshmi Narayana Reddy Vs Sri Ravi

Sri. B. L. Jagadeesh Vs State of Karnataka