PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR N v. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:259-DB WP No. 31818 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 31818 OF 2024 (GM-MM_S) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. CHANDRAAVVA W/O. BHEEMAPPA HOSUR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS AND HOUSEHOLD R/O. HOUSE NO.MIG 276 KHB COLONY, 6TH CROSS MUDDEBIHAL VIJAYPUR DISTRICT-586 212. Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI SHIVALLI SHIVAYOGI YALLAPPAGOUDA, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPTD., BY ITS SECRETARY DEPT. OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN R.C. ROAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:259-DB WP No. 31818 of 2024 BENGALURU-560 001. 3. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY PWD COMPOUND STATION ROAD VIJAYAPUR-586 104. 4. THE TAHSILDAR MUDDEBIHAL MUDDEBIHAL TALUK VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT-586 212. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE NOTICE DATED 08.02.2024 ISSUED IN NO.GABHUEE/HIBHUVI /NOTICE/2023-24/2520 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT No.3 AS BEING ARBITRARY ERRONEOUS AND CONTRARY TO LAW, EQUITY AND JUSTICE (ANNEXURE-C), ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:259-DB WP No. 31818 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN) 1. The case of the petitioner is that she has been granted the necessary licence to quarry building stone in 9 acres 5 guntas of land in Sy.No.20/2 of Alkopparaa Village, Muddebihala Taluk, Vijayapura District. Respondent No.3 has issued the impugned notice dated 08.02.2024 (vide Annexure-‘C’ to the writ petition), wherein it has been alleged that the petitioner is permitted to carry on quarrying activity in Sy.No.20/2 of Alkopparaa Village, Muddebihala Taluk, but it has been carrying on the quarrying activity illegally in Sy.No.20/3 of the said Village and for that reason, it has been demanded that the petitioner has to pay a penalty of Rs.3,78,34,650/-. When the petitioner enquired about the same with the Officer of respondent No.3 and sought for further particulars, so that she can issue a proper response to the impugned notice dated 08.02.2024, respondent No.3 stated that necessary particulars will be made available after a drone survey is conducted of the relevant area and if it is thereafter found that the petitioner has carried out any illegal mining activity. However, without due notice to the petitioner Drone survey was conducted - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:259-DB WP No. 31818 of 2024 behind the back of the petitioner and the impugned notice dated 22.10.2024 (vide Annexure-‘F’ to the writ petition) is issued to the petitioner by respondent No.4 demanding payment of Rs.3,78,34,650/- towards penalty. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition challenging the impugned notice dated 08.02.2024 (vide Annexure-‘C’ to the writ petition) issued by respondent No.3 and notice dated 22.10.2024 issued by respondent No.4 vide Annexure-‘F’ to the writ petition) wherein petitioner has been demanded to pay a penalty of Rs.3,78,34,650/-. 2. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents upon instructions justifies the impugned notices and
Decision
prays for dismissal of the writ petition. She submits that necessary intimations were issued to the petitioner when it was decided to conduct a Drone survey, but the petitioner did not co-operate with the Authorities concerned and did not participate in the said survey. 3. Considered the submissions of learned advocates for the parties and perused the writ papers. 4. The writ petition primarily revolves around various factual aspects, which need not be elaborated upon given the limited - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:259-DB WP No. 31818 of 2024 scope of intervention required in this case. The principal contention raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner is that the impugned demand notice was issued without providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, without proper adjudication and without furnishing the materials or documents forming the basis of the demand. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate though attempted to defend the impugned notice, was at receiving end when the Court required to point out from the demand notice or any other proceedings as to the opportunity provided to the petitioner before issue of demand notice. 6. The Court on perusal of the order impugned, finds no order determining liability is made before issue of the demand notice. Even the demand notice is silent on the supply of documents and the basis for the demand notice. 7. In light of the aforementioned aspects, it can be held that the impugned demand notice was issued without affording the petitioner an opportunity to submit her defense. The impugned notice, therefore, suffers from violation of the principles of natural - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:259-DB WP No. 31818 of 2024 justice and on this sole ground, cannot be sustained. Consequently, it is hereby set aside. 8. The challenge to the impugned notice is primarily on violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, the Court directs to reconsider the matter afresh. Accordingly, the following, ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed-in-part. (ii) The impugned Notice dated 08.02.2024 issued by respondent No.3 at Annexure-C and the Notice dated 22.10.2024 issued by respondent No.4 at Annexure-F, are hereby quashed. (iii) The Notice dated 08.02.2024 at Annexure-C shall be treated as Show-Cause Notice. (iv) The petitioner is permitted to submit reply within two weeks. (v) The petitioner may request any additional details from respondent No.3 and if such request is made, respondent No.3 shall provide such details forming the basis of the notice. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:259-DB WP No. 31818 of 2024 (vi) The respondents-authorities are at liberty to pass fresh orders or issue demand notice after considering the response of the petitioner. (vii) The above directed exercise shall be completed within six weeks. (viii) Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. SD/- (N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34