Dismissed

M/S Sree Maheshwara Granites v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Aug 2024WP/13320/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A granite industry challenged a notice requiring registration under Rule 15-B of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, contending it was a micro-scale industry outside the Rule's purview. The Court held the petition premature at the notice stage and relegated the petitioner to respond to the competent authority.

What did the court decide?

Petition not entertained as premature; liberty to reply to the notice; authority to decide registration within two months.

M/S Sree Maheshwara Granites Vs the State of… — Mining and Natural Resources | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:30410-DB WP No. 13320 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 13320 OF 2024 (GM-MM-S)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/S. SREE MAHESHWARA GRANITES

¶10

HAVING ITS OFFICE AT

¶11

PLOT NO.61-B, 1^ST PHASE

¶12

KIADB,

¶13

ANTHARASANAHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA

¶14

TUMKUR – 572 106

¶15

REP. BY ITS PARTNER SRI. RAMESH T.

¶16

Digitally signed by PRABHAKAR SWETHA KRISHNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶17

(BY SRI MANJUNATH G. KANDEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶18

…PETITIONER

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY M.S. BUILDING AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE – 560 001

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC:30410-DB WP No. 13320 of 2024

¶22

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN SPOORTHI LAYOUT BADDIHALLI RING ROAD TUMKURU – 572 104

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBARM, AGA)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE 2^ND RESPONDENT IN NOTICE DATED 24.08.2023 AND TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AND ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING ANNEXURE-A NOTICE DATED 24.08.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT IN No.GABUE/UNITHU/KAGAGU/NOTICE/2023-24/2235.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:30410-DB WP No. 13320 of 2024

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)

¶32

Heard learned advocate Mr. Manjunath G. Kandekar for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar for the respondents who appeared upon service of copy of this petition in advance.

¶33

What is sought to be called in question in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, is notice dated 24/28.08.2023, whereby respondent No.2-Deputy Director of Department of Mines and Geology, Tumkuru has required the petitioner-industry to seek and get registration under Rule 15-B of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994.

¶34

The notice is indicative that it is a notice issued under Rule 15-B of the aforesaid Rules as amended in 2023. It requires the petitioner-industry to get registered within the period of 90 days and pay the registration fees to further state that the failure would entail the levy of fine.

¶35

Learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a small and micro scale industry which would not fall

¶36

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:30410-DB WP No. 13320 of 2024

¶37

within the purview of aforesaid Rule and therefore, shall not be liable to be registered. Be that as it may. It is for the competent authority to examine the merits.

¶38

4.1. Learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that

¶39

M/s. Shanthala Marbles and Granites Vs. The State of

¶40

Karnataka and another which is Writ Petition No.14024 of 2024, similar fact situation was posed before the Court, wherein similar notice was under challenge and the Court relegated the petitioner to the authorities permitting the petitioner to file reply.

¶41

Since the controversy is only at the notice stage and the petition is filed at such stage, the petitioner is at liberty to respond to the notice.

¶42

The competent authority shall decide about the registration of the petitioner-industry strictly in accordance with law as per the Rules and after taking into account the stand of the petitioner.

¶43

This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case of the either side and has not gone into the merits. The petition is not entertained accordingly as it is pre-mature relegating the petitioner as above and requiring the authorities to take

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:30410-DB WP No. 13320 of 2024

¶46

decision and to complete the entire exercise within two months

¶47

from today.

¶48