M/S Dilip Buildcon Limited, Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:14602-DB WP No. 11275 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

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

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 11275 OF 2023 (GM-MM_S)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S. DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PLOT NO.5, INSIDE GOVIND NARAYAN SINGH GATE, CHUNA BHATTI KOLAR ROAD, BHOPAL-462 016 (MADHYA PRADESH). REP. BY ITS ASST. MANAGER (LEGAL) RAHUL KUMAR KUSHWAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BY SRI. ROHAN KOTHARI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. DEPT. OF COMMERCE & INDUSTIRES VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:14602-DB WP No. 11275 of 2023

¶17

THE DIRECTOR & COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.

¶18

THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST & COMPETENT AUTHORITY DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY

¶19

KARWAR-581 301.

¶20

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & CHAIRMAN OF THE LICENSING AUTHORITY UNDER THE KARNATAKA REGULATION OF STONE CRUSHER ACT UTTAR KANNADA, KARWAR-581 301.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION DIRECTING TO QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE FINAL NOTICE DATED 17.03.2023 BEARING No.GaBhuE/UKaJi/Ra.Ba.Pa/notice/2022-23/3446 ISSUED BY THE 4^TH RESPONDENT SENIOR GEOLOGIST, DEMANDING A TOTAL SUM OF Rs.11,14,59,918/- AS AN ARREARS OF ROYALTY PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A; ALLEGEDLY FOR HAVING VIOLATED RULE 6(3) OF KMMC RULES, IN RESPECT PETITIONERS QUARRY LEASE AT QL No.569 OVER AN AREA OF 9-35 ACRES IN Sy.No.43A 226+227+228+230 PLOT NO.308 OF RAMANAGARA (ADALI) VILLAGE, JOIDA TALUKA, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14602-DB WP No. 11275 of 2023

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN)

¶29

At the request of learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal at this stage itself.

¶30

The petitioner is said to be a lease holder of quarry lease at QL No.569 in Government land bearing Survey No.43A of Adali village, Joida Taluka , Uttara Kannada District to an extent of 9 Acres 35 Guntas of land. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved of the notice dated 17.03.2023 (Annexure-A) issued by respondent No.4 wherein, a demand is made for a sum of Rs.11,14,59,918/-, being arrears of royalty and the penalty on the ground of required royalty amount has not been paid within the stipulated time. The said notice is said to have been issued under Rule 6 of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994.

¶31

The case of the petitioner is that it is not liable to pay any amount as demanded and that it has paid the royalty amount as

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14602-DB WP No. 11275 of 2023

¶33

required under law. It further submitted that the impugned notice is issued without given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and if the petitioner were to given an opportunity, it would have provided necessary information to show that all the necessary royalty amount has been paid.

¶34

Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, though attempted to justify the action of the respondents, he could not dispute the fundamental fact that before calling upon the petitioner to remit the amount by way of impugned notice, the petitioner has not been given an opportunity of hearing.

¶35

In the undisputable fact situation that the impugned notice has been issued without extending an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, we are of the view that recovery under the said notice cannot be sustained.

¶36

In our view, interest of justice shall be served if the impugned notice dated 17.03.2023 is treated as a show cause notice and the petitioner is permitted to submit its reply to the allegations made therein within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Upon receipt of such reply, it shall be

¶37