Sri. Haroon. K Vs the State Karnataka

SRI. HAROON. K S/O MOOSA KUNHI, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.12 BHYARI MELENSIA KAKANADI, MANGALORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575002 9483521190, [email protected]

¶11

Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT AND: OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI. SACHIN B S ,ADVOCATE)

¶13

THE STATE KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, MULTISTORIED BUILDING, DR. B. R. AMEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001.

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY,

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:42949-DB WP No. 15441 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

JUGAL TOWERS, MALLIKATTE, MANGALURU, DAKSHINA KANNADA-575001

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. K S HARISH, GA)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 12.02.2025 IN No. Ga.Bu.Ee/HE.Bu.VI (MANGALURU) DCB/2024-25/5385 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶26

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶27

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition impugning

¶28

the notice dated 12.2.2025 and an order dated 15.5.5025.

¶29

It is the petitioner's case that the notice dated 12.2.2025, although termed as a notice, is an order imposing penalty

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:42949-DB WP No. 15441 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

equivalent to five times of royalty. The relevant extract of the said notice reads as under:

¶34

"The notice has been issued by imposing fine of Rs 50,000/- as per Rule 44 (2) Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1994 and 5 times fine of royalty Rs 9,31,200/- as per Rule 44 (4) for transporting total 2328 MT minor mineral by unauthorizedly conducting the quarrying in 0-21 acre area means 143 sq mtr extent to the 04 mtr depth outside the area of sanctioned Stone Quary Lease No: 227 (572 MT) and conducting quarrying in 0-43 acre area means 250.95 sq mtr extent to the 07 mtr depth outside the area of sanctioned Stone Quary Lease No: 228 (1756 MT) and to stop the quarrying operation in said stone quarry lease area till the further order."

¶35

In terms of the said notice, the petitioner was called upon to furnish a written explanation for not complying with the specific conditions of Environmental Clearance Certificate and unauthorisedly transporting minor minerals, within a period of fifteen days.

¶36

The petitioner states that he responded to the said notice by letter dated 15.05.2025 on 16.05.2025. However, the same was not considered.

¶37

The competent authority [Senior Geologist] proceeded to pass an order dated 15.05.2025 cancelling the Stone quarry Lease No.227 in respect of 2 acres of land falling in Sy.No.61/11P2 in

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:42949-DB WP No. 15441 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Tenka, Kajekaru Village, Bantwal Taluk and Stone quarry Lease No.228 to an extent of 2 acres falling in Sy.No.61/11P1 in Tenka, Kajekaru Village, Bantwal Taluk.

¶42

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition being aggrieved by the imposition of the fine as well as cancellation of the quarrying leases in question.

¶43

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Senior Geologist is not the competent authority to pass the said orders. Secondly, he submitted that the impugned notice and the order were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity was granted to the petitioner to respond to the same.

¶44

Learned AGA has handed over a copy of the notification dated 11.09.2023, which clearly indicates that the Senior Geologist, Department of Mines and Geology is a competent authority and has jurisdiction, inter alia, in respect of sub-Rules (1), (2) and (3) of Rule 6 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994. Thus, the petitioner's contention that the Senior Geologist is not a competent authority, is unmerited.

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:42949-DB WP No. 15441 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Although, the impugned notice dated 12.02.2025 is termed as a notice, it is so worded as to read that a penalty has been imposed. The impugned order dated 15.5.2025 is also premised on the basis that the penalty imposed has not been paid.

¶48

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the said notice and order must be read in context of prior communications as well as joint inspection conducted by the authorities.

¶49

Without examining the said contention and to obviate any further allegation of violation of principles of natural justice, we considered it apposite to direct that the impugned notice and the order be considered as notices. The competent authority shall pass a fresh order after considering the response dated 15.05.2025 as furnished by the petitioner, which is annexed as Annexure-G to the present petition. The petitioner is also at liberty to furnish an additional reply within a period of two weeks from date. The competent authority shall consider the same and pass an appropriate order after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period

¶50