Sri Mahesh Rai B v Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Sri Mahesh Rai B v Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned demand notice dated 14.05.2026 to be treated as a show cause notice; petitioner at liberty to respond within two weeks; concerned authorities to take an informed decision in accordance with law after affording a hearing; all rights and contentions including validity of Rule 44A reserved.

Issue for consideration

Whether the demand notice dated 14.05.2026 demanding Rs. 10,25,56,068/- as penalty under Rule 44A is invalid because it was issued without affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard or to contest the grounds. +1 more

Court's answer

The petition is disposed of by directing that the impugned demand notice dated 14.05.2026 be considered as a show cause notice.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner may respond to the show cause notice within two weeks, whereafter the concerned authorities shall take an informed decision in accordance with law after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

Key takeaways

All rights and contentions of the parties, including regarding the validity of Rule 44A of the Rules, stand reserved.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Division Bench: Vibhu Bakhru, Chief Justice, and K.S. Hemalekha, J.; order per the Chief Justice) disposed of W.P. No. 16834 of 2026 filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking certiorari to quash a demand notice dated 14.05.2026 issued by the Senior Geologist (respondent No.3) demanding Rs. 10,25,56,068/- as fine/penalty by invoking Rule 44-A of the Karnataka Minor Minerals Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2026 as one time settlement (OTS), described in the body as Rule 44A of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 introduced by the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2026. The petitioner contended the notice was issued without affording him an opportunity to be heard. On the Government Advocate's fair statement, the Court disposed of the petition directing that the impugned demand notice be treated as a show cause notice; the petitioner may respond within two weeks and the authorities shall pass a final order in accordance with law after hearing him. All rights and contentions of the parties, including the validity of Rule 44A, were expressly reserved.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:27678-DB WP No. 16834 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

WRIT PETITION NO. 16834 OF 2026 (GM-MM-S)

BETWEEN:

SRI MAHESH RAI B.V. S/O. SRI VENKAPPA RAI V.S. AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/AT SUNTIKOPPA MADAPURA ROAD ULUGULLI KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 237

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. PRASANNA V R., ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by AMBIKA H B Location: High Court of Karnataka

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPT. OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001

THE DIRECTOR DEP. OF MINES AND GEOLOGIST NO.49, RACE COURSE ROAD KHANJIA BHAVANA BENGALURU - 560 001

THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:27678-DB WP No. 16834 of 2026

HC-KAR

KODAGU DISTRICT MADIKERI - 571 201

…RESPONDENTS

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

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 14.05.2026 ISSUED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT SENIOR GEOLOGIST VIDE ANNEXURE-A DEMANDING RS.10,25,56,068/- AS FINE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 44-A OF THE KARNATAKA MINOR MINERALS CONCESSION (AMENDMENT) RULES, 2026 AS ONE TIME SETTLEMENT (OTS) WITH PENAL PROVISIONS IN CASE OF NON-COMPLIANCE AND ETC.

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

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

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL ORDER

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

The learned Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia , impugning the demand notice dated 14.05.2026 issued by respondent No.3 demanding an amount of `10,25,56,068/- as penalty in terms of the provisions of Rule 44A of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 as introduced by virtue of

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:27678-DB WP No. 16834 of 2026

HC-KAR

Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2026 [ Rules ].

The petitioner contends that the impugned notice called upon the petitioner to appear before the concerned officer along with all documents within a period of seven days and also called upon the petitioner to discharge the payment.

The petitioner argues that the said demand notice is invalid as it has been issued without affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard or to contest the grounds on which the notice has been issued.

The learned Government Advocate fairly states that the impugned demand notice dated 14.05.2026 be considered as a show cause notice and the petitioner would be at liberty to respond to the said show cause notice and the concerned authorities shall issue final order after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

In view of the aforesaid statement, we dispose of the present petition by directing that the impugned demand notice be considered as a show cause notice. The petitioner may respond to

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:27678-DB WP No. 16834 of 2026

HC-KAR

the same within a period of two weeks from date. The concerned authorities shall take an informed decision in accordance with law after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

We clarify that all rights and contentions of the parties including, regarding the validity of Rule 44A of the Rules are

reserved.

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

AHB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11