Akshaykumar Dyamanagouda Kulkarni Vs the State of Karnataka

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

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI K.S HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

¶25

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 25.05.2026 PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

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

¶30

The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning the

¶31

demand notice dated 25.05.2026 issued under Rule 44-A of the

¶32

Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 [ KMMC Rules ],

¶33

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:32864-DB WP No. 19276 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

calling upon the petitioner to pay the sum of `45,06,810/- as penalty for extracting excess quantity of 64,388 metric tonnes of mineral from the quarry lease. 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 29.05.2026 and his representation dated 15.06.2026.

¶36

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.

¶37

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 by letter dated 29.05.2026 to the demand notice, the same has not been considered.

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:32864-DB WP No. 19276 of 2026

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

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.

¶41

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.

¶42

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

¶43

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶44

Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

¶45

AHB, List No.: 2 Sl No.: 20

Akshaykumar Dyamanagouda Kulkarni v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akshaykumar Dyamanagouda Kulkarni 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.Chandra Naik N Vs Sri.Kantharaju

Sri. Venkataramu Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Krishnappa Y H Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr G Rabinathan Vs Sri. Tushar Girinath

Jupiter Capital Private Limited Vs Amica Financial Technologies Private Limited

Mr. Baburao Jivappa Hanamannavar Vs the State of Karnataka