Dismissed¶43

M/S Navrang Stones v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Jan 2025WP/13108/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Navrang Stones v. State of Karnataka (WP 13108/2024, Karnataka HC DB, Anjaria CJ & Arun J, 06.01.2025): writ petition against Rule 15-B KMMC Rules 1994 (2023 amendment) registration notice dismissed as premature; petitioner (claims small/micro scale status) at liberty to reply; Deputy Director to decide per law within two months; merits left open; comparable matter noted - Shanthala Marbles, WP 14024/2024.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; the writ petition stands dismissed subject to the observations - the petitioner is at liberty to respond to the notice and the competent authority is to decide the registration question strictly in accordance with law, completing the entire exercise within two months. ¶43

M/S Navrang Stones Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner-industry, claiming to be a small and micro scale industry, falls within the purview of Rule 15-B of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 and is liable to be registered pursuant to the impugned notice. +1 more

¶32

Court's answer

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.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

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.

¶36

Key takeaways

The petition, filed at the notice stage, is premature; it is not entertained and the petitioner is relegated to the authorities, who are required to take a decision and complete the entire exercise within two months.ratio¶38
This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case of either side and has not gone into the merits.obiter¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Division Bench (N.V. Anjaria, C.J. and M.I. Arun, J.) - Writ Petition No. 13108 of 2024 dismissed as premature - Challenge to Annexure-A notice dated 24/08/2023 issued by the Deputy Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Tumkuru under Rule 15-B of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (as amended in 2023) requiring the petitioner stone industry to register within 90 days and pay registration fees, failing which fine - Petitioner contended it is a small and micro scale industry outside the purview of the Rule - Controversy held to be only at the notice stage; petitioner given liberty to respond to the notice - Competent authority directed to decide the question of registration strictly in accordance with law as per the Rules, taking into account the petitioner's stand, and to complete the entire exercise within two months - Court expressed no opinion on the merits.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:35-DB WP No. 13108 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 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. 13108 OF 2024 (GM-MM_S)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S. NAVRANG STONES

¶9

HAVING ITS OFFICE AT: PLOT NO.30P 2^ND PHASE

¶10

KIADB, ANTHARASANAHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA TUMKUR - 572 106. REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR: SRI.NAGENDRA M.

¶11

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

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

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

¶14

AND:

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:35-DB WP No. 13108 of 2024

¶18

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

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE 2^ND RESPONDENT IN NOTICE NO.GABUE/UNITHU/KAGAGU/NOTICE/2023-24/2261 DATED 24/08/2023; AND 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/202324/2261 AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:35-DB WP No. 13108 of 2024

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

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

¶27

Heard learned advocate Smt. Rajamma 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.

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:35-DB WP No. 13108 of 2024

¶32

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

¶34

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

¶35

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.

¶36

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.

¶37

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.

¶38

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.

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:35-DB WP No. 13108 of 2024

¶40

¶41