M/S Gmm Enterprises Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

M/S Gmm Enterprises Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of without quashing the notices; petitioner given liberty to respond to the show cause notice within two weeks, and the competent authority directed to consider the representation and pass an appropriate order after affording an opportunity of being heard, with all rights and contentions kept open.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Revised Notice of OTS Demand dated 20.05.2026 was issued without affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, warranting quashing under Articles 226/227. +1 more

Court's answer

In view of the respondents' stand that the last paragraph of the impugned notice shows it to be in the nature of a show cause notice, no further orders were required to be passed in the petition.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is at liberty to respond to the said show cause notice within two weeks from the date of the order.

Key takeaways

The concerned authority shall consider the petitioner's representation and pass an appropriate order after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.ratio¶42
All rights and contentions of the parties on the substantive liability (including the quantum of the Rule 44A demand) were kept open, and the petition was disposed of without quashing the notice.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-MM-S) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India — M/s GMM Enterprises challenged a 'Revised Notice of OTS Demand' dated 20.05.2026 issued under Rule 44A of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 by the Senior Geologist, Department of Mines and Geology, Davanagere, calling upon it to pay an OTS penalty of Rs.14,68,21,250/- as one time settlement on the allegation that it had removed 19,96,539 metric tons of building stone without paying royalty and had mined 51,048 metric tons from encroachment, contending the notice was issued without affording an opportunity to be heard. On the Additional Government Advocate pointing out that the last paragraph of the notice showed it to be in the nature of a show cause notice, the Division Bench (Vibhu Bakhru, CJ and K.S. Hemalekha, J) disposed of the petition, permitting the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice within two weeks and directing the competent authority to consider the representation and pass an appropriate order after affording an opportunity of being heard; all rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.

1 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:37655-DB WP No. 21388 of 2026

CNR: KAHC010479352026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 22^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. 21388 OF 2026 (GM-MM-S)

BETWEEN:

M/S GMM ENTERPRISES A PARTNERSHIP FORMED VIDE

Digitally signed by K P SWETHA Location: High Court of Karnataka

A PARTNERSHIP DEED REG OFF. #3368/1 SHAMMANUR ROAD LAKSHMI FLOUR MILL LAKSHMI FLOUR MILLS PREMISES DAVANAGERE - 577 004 REP. BY ITS PARTNER S.S. GANESH

…PETITIONER

(BY MS. DEEKSHA N. AMRUTHESH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI AMRUTHESH N.P., ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VIKASA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

2 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:37655-DB WP No. 21388 of 2026

CNR: KAHC010479352026

THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001

THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY VIDYANAGAR DAVANAGERE - 577 005

…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 OF ANNEXURE-A, THE REVISED DEMAND NOTICE DATED 20/05/2026 BEARING NO.GaBhuE: HiBhuDa:OTS-NOTICE:2026-27/329 ISSUED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT, SENIOR GEOLOGIST OF DEPARTMENT MINES AND GEOLOGY, DAVANAGERE, DEMANDING RS.14,68,21,250/- AS FINE ALONG WITH ANNEXURE-A1, THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 07/05/2026 BEARING NO.GaBhuE: HiBhuDa:OTS-Notice 2026-27/246 ISSUED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT 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 WITHIN 45 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF SAID NOTICE & ETC.

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

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:37655-DB WP No. 21388 of 2026

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC010479352026

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, inter alia , impugning a 'Revised Notice of OTS Demand' dated 20.05.2026 issued under Rule 44A of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994. The said notice alleges that the petitioner has removed 19,96,539 metric tons of building stone without paying the royalty and has also mined 51,048 metric tons from encroachment mining.

The impugned notice indicates that respondent No.3 has issued the said notice to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to pay the penalty at a heavily discounted rate. The petitioner has been called upon to pay an OTS penalty of `14,68,21,250/- as a one time settlement. The petitioner seeks to contest the said notice. It is submitted that the same has been issued without affording the petitioner any opportunity to be heard.

The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents states that although the impugned notice is styled

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:37655-DB WP No. 21388 of 2026

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC010479352026

as a demand notice, the last paragraph of the said notice clearly indicates that it is in the nature of a show cause notice. He points out that the petitioner be directed to provide an explanation to the notice of the competent authority along with appropriate documents, treating the said notice as a show cause notice. The petitioner is at liberty to respond to the same and the competent authority to issue a final notice after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.

In view of the above, no further orders are required to be passed in this petition. The petitioner is at liberty to respond to the said show cause notice within a period of two weeks from date. The concerned authority shall consider the representation and pass an appropriate order after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. We clarify that all rights and contentions of the parties are kept open. The present petition is accordingly disposed of.

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

KPS, List No.: 2 Sl No.: 13