Karnataka High Court
M/S G.T.B. Enterprises vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 February, 2020
Bench: Chief Justice, Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO.33161 OF 2019 (GM-MM-S)
BETWEEN:
M/S. G.T.B. ENTERPRISES
OFFIE AT NO.233
THAMMANAYAKANAHALLI VILALGE
THAMMANAYAKANAHALLI POST
KASABA HOBLI
ANEKAL TLAUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 106
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
SRI B.T. NAGARAJ REDDY
... PETITIONER
(BY SHRI GANAPATHI BHAT VAJRALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR B.R. AMBEDKAR VIDHI
BENGALURU-560001
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OFMINES AND GEOLOGY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR B.R. AMBEDKAR VIDHI
BENGALURU-560001
2
3. THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF MINES
AND GEOLOGY
KANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU-560001
4. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST
DEPARTMENT OF MINES
AND GEOLOGY
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
V.V. TOWER
DR B.R. AMBEDKAR VIDHI
BENGALURU-560001
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI V.G. BHANUPRAKASH, AGA)
---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 01.12.2018, AS
PER ANNEXURE-N AND IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED
24.01.2019 AS PER ANNEXURE-P AND IMPUGNED NOTICE
DATED 21.02.2019 AS PER ANNEXURE-Q AND IMPUGNED
FINAL DEMAND NOTICE DATED 09.07.2019, AS PER
ANNEXURE-R, ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AND
ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The parties were put to notice that the petition will be heard and disposed of finally. Accordingly, the petition is taken up for Final Hearing. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
2. The first challenge in the petition by way of an amendment is to the notice at Annexure-N. By the said notice dated 1st December, 2018, the petitioner was called upon to give an explanation within thirty days as to why Royalty amount should not be recovered from him. The said notice is based on the drone survey conducted on 29th October, 2018. The petitioner replied to the said notice on 24th January, 2019. The second challenge in the petition is to the demand notice dated 24th January, 2019 (Annexure- P). It was mentioned in the said notice that if the petitioner does not deposit the amount as specified therein within sixty days after the receipt of the notice, and if the defects are not cured within thirty days, the quarrying lease will be cancelled. The said demand is made on the basis of an 4 audit report for the year 2017-18. The petitioner replied to the same by a letter dated 12th March, 2019. A further challenge in the writ petition is to the notice 21st February, 2019 (Annexure-Q) which is based on a drone survey report dated 21st December, 2018. By the said notice, a demand of payment of Royalty was made and the petitioner was put to notice that if the amount is not paid, action will be taken for recovery of the said amount. The petitioner replied to the said notice vide reply dated 13th March, 2019.
3. The last challenge is to the final notice dated 9th July, 2019 (Annexure-R) by which a demand was made for arrears of Royalty for the year 2017-18. It is mentioned that failing payment of the amount under the demand, action will be taken for cancellation of the lease.
4. Now coming to the demand at Annexure-N at page 206, the petitioner replied to Annexure-N by reply dated 24th January, 2019. However, there is nothing placed on record to show that any order was passed after considering the reply. As regards Annexure-P, it is based only on the audit report of the year 2017-18. It is a demand made 5 without giving any show-cause notice or an opportunity of being heard. However, the petitioner has replied to the said demand.
5. As stated earlier, Annexure-N is based on the drone survey report dated 29th October, 2018. Annexure-Q is again a notice of demand based on the subsequent drone survey report dated 21st December, 2018. Though the petitioner has replied to the same, no order has been passed after considering the reply. As regards Annexure- R, it appears to be a continuation of Annexure-P where a demand is made for the year 2017-18 on the basis of an audit report.
6. Therefore, we find that no adjudication of the amounts allegedly payable by the petitioner has been made, though the petitioner has replied to the first three notices. As stated earlier, Annexure-R which is the fourth demand appears to be based on the demand dated 24th January, 2019 (Annexure-P).
6
7. Hence, we dispose of the petition by passing the following order:
ORDER
(i) It will be open for the respondents to pass orders on the basis of the notices dated 1st December, 2018 (Annexure-N), 21st July, 2019 (Annexure-Q) after considering the reply issued by the petitioner to both the notices and after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner;
(ii) It will be also open to the authorities to pass orders on the basis of the notice dated 24th January, 2019 (Annexure-P) and the final notice dated 9th July, 2019 (Annexure-R) after considering the reply filed to the notice at Annexure-P and after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner;
(iii) We make it clear that unless orders as aforesaid are passed, no recovery can be initiated or no adverse action can be taken against the petitioner on the basis of the impugned notices;7
(iv) We make it clear that we have not made any adjudication on the merits of the controversy and all the contentions are kept open to be decided by the concerned authorities.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE vgh*