Disposed¶42

Raghavendra Ramesh Naik v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Jul 2026WP/19445/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP No.19445 of 2026 (GM-MM_S), High Court of Karnataka, decided 03.07.2026. Keywords: Rule 44A KMMC Rules; Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1994; one time settlement OTS; show cause notice; principles of natural justice; penalty demand Rs. 8,02,13,350; excess extraction and encroachment 7,37,657 MT; Department of Mines and Geology Belagavi; KSRSAC; writ of certiorari; disposal on statement of Government Advocate; rights reserved.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of in terms of the Government Advocate's statement: the impugned demand notice is to be treated as a show cause notice and appropriate orders passed after affording the petitioner a hearing and following the principles of natural justice; all rights and contentions of the parties reserved. ¶42

Raghavendra Ramesh Naik Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned demand notice dated 18.05.2026 is vitiated because it was issued without following the principles of natural justice and without considering the petitioner's reply dated 17.06.2026. +1 more

¶38

Court's answer

The petition is disposed of with the respondents bound down to the statement made on their behalf by the learned Government Advocate: the impugned notice shall be considered as a show cause notice and appropriate orders passed after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, following the principles of natural justice.

¶42

Key takeaways

All rights and contentions of the parties are reserved, expressly 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 court did not decide this point.obiter¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Division Bench: Vibhu Bakhru, CJ and K.S. Hemalekha, J.; order per the Chief Justice) disposed of a writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution challenging a demand notice dated 18.05.2026 (GABHUE/UNI/BEVI/OTS-NOTICE-202627/1170) issued by the Deputy Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Belagavi under Rule 44A of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, demanding Rs. 8,02,13,350/- as penalty for alleged excess extraction and encroachment of 7,37,657 metric tons of mineral. On the Government Advocate's fair statement, the respondents were bound down to treat the impugned notice as a show cause notice and pass appropriate orders after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and following the principles of natural justice. All rights and contentions were reserved, including the petitioner's contention that the one time settlement (OTS) under Rule 44-A of the KMMC Rules is voluntary and at the option of the lease/licence holder; that point was left open.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:33140-DB WP No. 19445 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

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

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO.19445 OF 2026 (GM-MM_S)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

RAGHAVENDRA RAMESH NAIK AGED 31 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF MAHALASA CONSTRUCTIONS, HAVING ITS UNIT AT 173/7+8A GANIKOPPA VILLAGE, BAILHONGAL TALUK AND DISTRICT BELAGAVI R/O. PLOT NO.980, MAHALASA NIWAS, MAHAVEER NAGAR, UDYAMBAG, BELAGAVI- 590008.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

(BY SRI. ARJUN A. HEBBAR, ADVOCATE, MS. ADITI P. GOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR

¶15

SRI GOUDAR PRASHANTH FAKEERAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶18

THE DIRECTOR/ SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:33140-DB WP No. 19445 of 2026

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY DISTRICT: BELAGAVI BAUXITE ROAD, KUMARSWAMY LAYOUT, BELAGAVI-590019.

¶23

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-560097 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

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

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, DIRECTION OR ORDER QUASHING THE IMPUGNED DEMAND NOTICE BEARING GABHUE/UNI/BEVI/OTS-NOTICE-202627/1170 DATED 18/05/2026 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

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

¶31

The learned Government Advocate accepts notice for the

¶32

respondents.

¶33

The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning a notice dated 18.05.2026 issued under Rule 44A of the Karnataka

¶34

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:33140-DB WP No. 19445 of 2026

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 [ KMMC Rules ], calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of `8,02,13,350/- as penalty for extracting excess and encroachment quantity totaling to 7,37,657 metric tons of mineral.

¶37

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 7 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 6 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.

¶38

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 17.06.2026 to the demand notice, the same has not been considered.

¶39

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:33140-DB WP No. 19445 of 2026

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

The learned Government Advocate fairly states that the present petition be disposed of by directing that the impugned notice be considered as a show cause notice. He states that the petitioner's response would be considered and an order would be passed after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

¶42

In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of, directing the respondents are bound down to the statement made on their behalf. The impugned order shall be considered as a show cause notice and appropriate orders would be passed after following the principles of natural justice.

¶43

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.

¶44

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶45

Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

¶46

MBM/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12

Raghavendra Ramesh Naik v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghavendra Ramesh Naik 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. B Shivakumar Vs Sri.Somashekar.K.S

Akshaykumar Dyamanagouda Kulkarni Vs the State of Karnataka

Maganlal Bhimji Patel Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Priyanka Vs Sri. Prathik

Mr. Arvind Mehra Vs Shri.Jagadeesha.G

Sri. Rajesh. S. T. Vs Mr. Raghavendra Prasanna