Sri Deveeramma Stone Crushers Vs State of Karnataka

SRI DEVEERAMMA STONE CRUSHERS, REP. BY ITS PROP. SUDARSHAN .H.B AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O BYPASS ROAD, NEAR HIREMANGALURU WATER TANK, JYOTHINAGAR, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577102.

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

(BY SMT. DEEKSHA N. AMRUTHESH, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

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

¶18

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPT. OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶19

THE DIRECTOR, DEPT. OF MINES & GEOLOGY, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶20

THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST, DEPT. OF MINES & GEOLOGY,

¶21

2 -

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

NC: 2026:KHC:37312-DB WP No. 21490 of 2026

¶24

CNR: KAHC010473162026

¶25

KHANIJA BHAVANA, JYOTHINAGAR, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577102.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

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

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING OF ANNEXURE-A, THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 06.05.2026 BEARING NO.GaBhuE:HiBhuChi:OTS:Notice:202627/397 ISSUED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT SENIOR GEOLOGIST OF DEPT. MINES & GEOLOGY, CHIKKAMAGALURU, DEMANDING RS.1,25,45,715/- AS FINE 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 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF SAID NOTICE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

¶29

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

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and

¶31

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

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

¶34

The learned Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents.

¶35

The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning the demand notice dated 06.05.2026 issued under Rule 44A of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 [ KMMC Rules ],

¶36

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:37312-DB WP No. 21490 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

CNR: KAHC010473162026

¶39

calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of `1,25,45,715/-. The said demand is premised on the allegation that the petitioner has extracted and transported building stone in a licensed quarry area without payment of the requisite royalty.

¶40

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.

¶41

The learned Additional Government Advocate clearly states that the impugned demand notice may be considered as a show cause notice. The petitioner may file a response to the same within a period of two weeks from date and the concerned authority shall pass a final order after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.

¶42

In view of the aforesaid statement, no orders are required to be passed in this petition, except that the respondents would be bound down to the statement, made on their behalf. We clarify that we have not examined the merits of the demand and nothing stated in this order should be construed as such.

¶43

4 -

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:37312-DB WP No. 21490 of 2026

¶46

CNR: KAHC010473162026

¶47

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

¶48

Rules, is voluntary and at the option of the lease/licence holder.

¶49

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶50

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶51

Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

¶52

MBM

¶53

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 21

Sri Deveeramma Stone Crushers v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Deveeramma Stone Crushers v. 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

M/S Gmm Enterprises Vs State of Karnataka

Smt G Selvi Vs the Commissioner

Sri R M Mahadevappa Vs State of Karnataka

M/S R B Seth Shreeram Narasingdas Vs Monitoring Committee

Rathnamma Vs Sri. Munish Moudgil I.A.S

Mr. v. Narayanaswamy Vs Hosakote Planning Authority- Bmrda