Dismissed

M/S Sdm Industries v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Sept 2024WP/13050/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a Mines and Geology department notice directing registration under Rule 15B(1) KMMC Amendment Rules 2023. Following an earlier similar case, the Court held the matter premature since it was at notice stage, relegated petitioner to reply, and directed authority to decide within two months without expressing merits opinion.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner at liberty to respond to notice; authority to decide requirement of registration within two months in accordance with law.

M/S Sdm Industries Vs the State of Karnataka — Mining and Natural Resources | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:35681-DB WP No. 13050 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 13050 OF 2024 (GM-MM_S)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

M/S SDM INDUSTRIES, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT PLOT No.173-D, 1^ST PHASE, VASANTHANARASAPURA INDURSTIRAL AREA, TUMKURU-572125. REP. BY ITS PARTNER, SRI T .K KUMR MANUNATH.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI MANJUNATH G. KANDEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, M S BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE 560001.

¶16

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, KHANIJA BHAVAN, SPOORTHI LAYOUT, BADDIHALLI, RING ROAD, TUMKAURU 572104.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:35681-DB WP No. 13050 of 2024

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AND ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING ANNEXURE-A NOTICE DATED 22.01.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT IN No. GABUE/UNITHU/KAGAGU/NOTICE/2023-24.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND)

¶26

Heard learned advocate Mr. Manjunath G. Kandekar for the

¶27

petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Smt.Niloufer Akbar for the respondents.

¶28

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling into question the notice dated 22.01.2024 issued by respondent No.2-Deputy Director, Department of Mines and Geology, requiring the petitioner to register under Rule 15 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 [for short ‘KMMC Rules’].

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:35681-DB WP No. 13050 of 2024

¶30

The notice indicates that the petitioner is engaged in the business of mineral based granite cutting and polishing in the name of M/s. SDM Industry. As stated in the notice, the mineral based industrial unit is required to be registered under the KMMC Amendment Rules, 2023.

¶31

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a micro and small scale enterprise. The industry run by the petitioner would not fall within the purview of the Rules and therefore, would not be required to be registered under the said Rules.

¶32

Learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the notice issued under Rule 15 B(1) of the KMMC Amendment Rules, 2023, was the subject matter in the case of M/s. Shanthala Marbles and Granites vs. The State of Karnataka and another

¶33

in Writ Petition No.14024 of 2024 , wherein a similar notice was under challenge on similar grounds and this Court relegated the petitioner to the authorities permitting the petitioner to file a reply.

¶34

In view of the order of this Court in Writ Petition No.14024 of 2024 and as the controversy is only at the notice stage, the petitioner has a remedy to respond to the notice.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:35681-DB WP No. 13050 of 2024

¶37

The petitioner is at liberty to respond to the notice. The competent authority shall decide the requirement of registration of the petitioner industry strictly in accordance with law as per the Rules and considering the reply of the petitioner.

¶38

The writ petition is disposed of as premature, relegating the petitioner to file a reply to the notice and requiring the authorities to take a decision within two months from today. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶39

The Writ Petition stands dismissed subject to above.

¶40

Sd/(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶41

Sd/(K V ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶42

¶43

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

M/S Sdm Industries v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sdm Industries 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.M. Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Venkatarama Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Jerom D Souza Vs Sri. Rajendra Kumar Kataria IAS

Sri Prajwal H S Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Kamala Vs State of Karnataka

Sri T Raghumurthy Vs State of Karnataka