Dismissed¶40

M/S N R Granites v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Jan 2025WP/12737/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rule 15-B; Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1994; amendment 2023; registration of mineral-based/granite unit; small and micro scale industry; notice dated 22.01.2024; No.GABUE/UNITHU/KAGAGU/NOTICE/2023-24; Deputy Director Department of Mines and Geology Tumkuru; premature writ petition at notice stage; certiorari Articles 226 and 227; liberty to reply to notice; decision within two months; M/s. Shanthala Marbles and Granites W.P. No. 14024 of 2024 similar matter; NC: 2025:KHC:512-DB; WP No. 12737 of 2024.

What did the court decide?

No relief; petition dismissed as pre-mature, subject to liberty for the petitioner to respond to the notice and directions to the competent authority to decide registration strictly in accordance with the Rules and complete the entire exercise within two months. ¶40

M/S N R Granites Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 22.01.2024 issued by respondent No.2 requiring the petitioner-industry to obtain registration under Rule 15-B of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 could be quashed by certiorari, or whether the petition was premature at the notice stage. +1 more

¶29

Court's answer

As the controversy was confined to the notice stage, the writ petition was held pre-mature and not entertained; the Court expressly did not express any opinion on the merits of either side and did not go into the merits.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner was given liberty to respond to the notice, and the competent authority shall decide about the registration of the petitioner-industry strictly in accordance with law as per the Rules, after taking into account the stand of the petitioner.

¶35

Key takeaways

The authorities were required to take the decision and to complete the entire exercise within two months from the date of the judgment.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Division Bench: Chief Justice N. V. Anjaria and Justice M.I. Arun), 08-01-2025 [NC: 2025:KHC:512-DB], WP No. 12737 of 2024 (GM-MM_S): M/s. N.R. Granites, Tumkuru, challenged under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the Annexure-'A' notice dated 22.01.2024 (No.GABUE/UNITHU/KAGAGU/NOTICE/2023-24) issued by the Deputy Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Tumkuru, requiring registration of the petitioner-industry under Rule 15-B of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (as amended in 2023) within 90 days with fees, failing which fine. Holding the controversy to be only at the notice stage, the Court found the petition pre-mature, expressed no opinion on merits, gave the petitioner liberty to respond to the notice, directed the competent authority to decide the registration question strictly in accordance with law after considering the petitioner's stand, and required the authorities to complete the entire exercise within two months; writ petition dismissed subject to the above. (Reference noted: M/s. Shanthala Marbles and Granites v. State of Karnataka, Writ Petition No. 14024 of 2024, where a similar notice was challenged and the petitioner was relegated to the authorities.)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:512-DB WP No. 12737 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

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

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 12737 OF 2024 (GM-MM_S)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

M/S. N.R. GRANITES HAVING ITS OFFICE AT: PLOT NO.207, 2ND PHASE YALLANDADLU KORA HOBLI KIADB., VASANTHANARASAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA TUMKUR-572 108 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR: SMT. SAVITHA.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SMT. RAJAMMA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI MANJUNATH G. KANDEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:512-DB WP No. 12737 of 2024

¶15

AND:

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA)

¶20

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, ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶24

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:512-DB WP No. 12737 of 2024

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

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

¶28

Heard learned advocate Smt. Rajamma for 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 the petition in advance.

¶29

What is sought to be called in question in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, is notice dated 22.01.2024, 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.

¶30

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.

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:512-DB WP No. 12737 of 2024

¶32

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

¶33

4.1. Learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that M/s. Shanthala Marbles and Granites Vs. The State of 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.

¶34

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.

¶35

5.1. 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.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:512-DB WP No. 12737 of 2024

¶38

This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of

¶39

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 decision and to complete the entire exercise within two months from today.

¶40

The writ petition stands dismissed subject to above.

¶41

SD/(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶42

SD/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶43

VMB

¶44

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

M/S N R Granites v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S N R Granites v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chamarajapete Nagarikara Okkuta (R) Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunath Shivanagouda Patil Vs State of Karnataka

Hap Realtors Private Limited Vs Mr Rakesh G

Jagalur Taluk Senior Citizens Association Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Byrappa Vs Sri. Shivaraj

Sri. Swamy Vs the Commissioner Bengaluru Development Authority