Mr. Baburao Jivappa Hanamannavar Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Mr. Baburao Jivappa Hanamannavar Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of: impugned demand notice dated 19.05.2026 to be treated as a show cause notice; petitioner free to respond within two weeks with all relevant documents; authority to consider the request for documents and pass final orders ensuring compliance with natural justice; all rights and contentions reserved, including the contention that OTS under Rule 44-A KMMC Rules is voluntary.

Issue for consideration

Whether the demand notice dated 19.05.2026 is vitiated as having been issued without following the principles of natural justice and without considering the petitioner's reply dated 17.06.2026. +1 more

Court's answer

On the learned Government Advocate's submission, the impugned demand notice is to be treated as a show cause notice, and the petitioner is at liberty to respond to it within two weeks along with all documents he considers necessary and relevant.

Ratio / Principle

The concerned authority is required to consider the petitioner's application seeking documents and shall pass final orders ensuring that the principles of natural justice are duly complied with.

Key takeaways

All rights and contentions of the parties are reserved, including the petitioner's contention that the one time settlement (OTS) contemplated under Rule 44-A of the KMMC Rules is voluntary and at the option of the lease/licence holder; the merits of the demand were not adjudicated.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (Division Bench: Vibhu Bakhru, Chief Justice, author; K.S. Hemalekha, J.) - WP No. 19250 of 2026 (GM-MMS), decided 02.07.2026. Mines and Minerals - Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, Rule 44-A - demand notice dated 19.05.2026 by Deputy Director, Department of Mines and Geology, requiring payment of total penalty of Rs. 5,42,07,160/- (Rs. 1,36,00,300/- for excess extraction of 1,94,290 MT; Rs. 4,06,06,860/- encroachment penalty for 2,90,049 MT) - petitioner contended notice violated natural justice and ignored his reply dated 17.06.2026. Held/disposed: on the Government Advocate's submission, the demand notice is to be treated as a show cause notice; petitioner may respond within two weeks with all relevant documents; the authority shall consider the application for documents and pass final orders ensuring compliance with natural justice; all rights and contentions reserved, including the petitioner's contention that the one time settlement (OTS) under Rule 44-A is voluntary and at the option of the lease/licence holder. Merits of the demand left undecided; no costs indicated.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:32862-DB WP No. 19250 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

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

WRIT PETITION NO.19250 OF 2026 (GM-MMS)

BETWEEN:

MR. BABURAO JIVAPPA HANAMANNAVAR AGED 97 YEARS

PROPRIETOR OF TRIMURTHI CRUSHER HAVING ITS UNIT AT No.540/1C WADA COMPOUND, ANGOL BELAGAVI - 590 006

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI GOUTHAM BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE FOR SRI GOUDAR PRASHANTH FAKKERAGOUDA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

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

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001

THE DIRECTOR/ SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANJIA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY DISTRICT BELAGAVI BAUXITE ROAD KUMARSWAMY LAYOUT BELAGAVI

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:32862-DB WP No. 19250 of 2026

HC-KAR

KARNATAKA STATE REMOTE SENSING APPLICATIONS CENTRE, (KSRSAC) DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (E-GOVERNANCE) OFFICE AT DOORA SAMVEDI BHAVANA MAJOR SANDEEP UNNIKRISHNAN ROAD DODDABETTAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 097 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR

…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 IMPUGNED DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED 19/05/2026 PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-A 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 petitioner has filed the present petition impugning the demand notice dated 19.05.2026 issued under Rule 44-A of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 [ KMMC Rules ],

calling upon the petitioner to pay the total penalty of `5,42,07,160/-

inclusive of sums of `1,36,00,300/- as penalty for extracting excess quantity of 1,94,290 metric tonnes of mineral from the quarry lease

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:32862-DB WP No. 19250 of 2026

HC-KAR

and `4,06,06,860/- as encroachment penalty for extracting 2,90,049 metric tonnes. The petitioner also sought issuance of directions to respondent No.3 for furnishing the documents, records and reports as requested by the petitioner in his reply dated 17.06.2026 vide Annexure-B.

As per the demand notice, the petitioner is also called upon to visit the concerned office (Office of the Deputy Director, Department of Mines and Geology) within a period of seven days along with appropriate documents regarding the penalty amount and for settlement of the matter. However, the petitioner has also been called upon to pay the stipulated penalty within a period of six months from the date of service of the notice. The notice also sets out that the petitioner is also permitted to pay the penalty in four equal installments with one installment due every 45 days.

One of the contentions advanced by the petitioner is that the said demand is vitiated as it has been issued without following the principles of natural justice and despite the petitioner responding to the demand notice by the letter dated 17.06.2026, the same has not been considered.

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:32862-DB WP No. 19250 of 2026

HC-KAR

The learned Government Advocate fairly submits that the impugned demand notice be considered as a show cause notice and the petitioner would be at liberty to respond to the said notice within a period of two weeks from date along with all the documents that the petitioner considers necessary and relevant. The concerned authority is also required to consider the said application seeking documents and shall pass final orders and ensure that the principles of natural justice are duly complied with.

We clarify that all rights and contentions of the parties are reserved including the petitioner's contention that the one time settlement [ OTS ] as contemplated under Rule 44-A of the KMMC Rules, is voluntary and at the option of the lease/licence holder.

The petition is, disposed of, in the aforesaid terms.

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

AHB, List No.: 2 Sl No.: 18