M/S S-Cube Robo Sand Vs the State of Karnataka

KARNATAKA STATE REMOTE SENSING APPLICATIONS CENTRE (KSRSAC) DOORA SAMVEDI BHAVANA MAJOR SANDEEP UNNIKRISHNAN ROAD DODDABETTAHALLI VIDYARANYAPURA BENGALURU - 560 097 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

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

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE PROVISO (a) TO RULE 40 OF KMMC RULES, AS PER NOTIFICATION NO.CI-MMN/205/2022 W.E.F 17.03.2023 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-K EMPOWERS RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO CONDUCT DGPS OR DRONE OR TOTAL STATION SURVEY 'PROSPECTIVELY' AND 'NOT RETROSPECTIVELY' FOR FREEZING THE REFERENCE OR REDUCED LEVELS FOR SYSTEMATIC AND SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT OF MINERAL EXTRACTION AND

¶32

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:35272-DB WP No. 20401 of 2026

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

DISPATCH AND FURTHER DECLARE THAT THE RESPONDENTS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO RECONSTRUCT DETERMINE OR QUANTIFY THE ALLEGED EXCESS EXTRACTION OR ENCROACHMENT OUTSIDE THE QUARRY LEASE AREA PRIOR TO 17.03.2023 BASED ON SUCH DGPS OR DRONE OR TOTAL STATION SURVEY AND ETC.

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

ORAL ORDER

¶38

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

¶39

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia , impugning the notice dated 18.05.2026 issued under Section 44A of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 [ KMMC Rules ].

¶40

The petitioner contends that the impugned demand notice is premised on a unilateral DGPS and drone surveys conducted in 2023 to "reconstruct" and quantify mining activities dating back to 2006-2007 a period for which no scientific base line data existed. It

¶41

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:35272-DB WP No. 20401 of 2026

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

is further submitted that proviso (a) to Rule 40 of the KMMC Rules, which was notified on 17.03.2023, expressly mandates that such surveys be conducted to freeze reference levels of concession areas "prospectively" and "not retrospectively" to facilitate future assessments. He submits that the impugned demand notice is premised on the reference points which did not exist at the material time. The petitioner also seeks a declaration that the proviso (a) to Rule 40 of the KMMC Rules does not apply retrospectively.

¶44

The aforesaid prayers are sought in the context of the challenge to the notice dated 18.05.2026.

¶45

The learned Government Advocate fairly states that the demand notice dated 18.05.2026 be considered as a show cause notice. The petitioner has already submitted his response to the said notice. The concerned authorities shall consider the same and pass an appropriate informed order after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

¶46