Karnataka High Court
Smt. Jyothi Prakash Shetty vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 January, 2023
Author: Prasanna B. Varale
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.24784 OF 2022 (GM-MMS)
BETWEEN:
SMT. JYOTHI PRAKASH SHETTY
W/O LATE PRAKASH SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT GANESH NILAYA
SVS COLLEGE
BANTWAL TALUK
SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT-571211.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BHAT GANAPATHY NARAYAN, 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 OF MINES 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 DEPUTY DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
1ST FLOOR JUGAL TOWER
MALLIKATTE MANGALORE
SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT-575002.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY APPROPRIATE ORDER
BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED DEMAND NOTICE DATED
06/05/2022, BEARING SL.NO.GA.BHU.E/U.NI
(M)/KA.GA.GHU/2022-23/50 24, ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT, AS PER ANNEXURE-K.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE, MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the demand notice dated 06.05.2022 issued by respondent No.4 - Deputy Director, Department of Mines and Geology, vide Annexure-K. 3
2. It may not be necessary for us to refer the facts in detail giving rise to the petition. The quarry lease license was granted in favour of one Sri Prakash Shetty in respect of Sy.No.172 measuring 3 acres 36 guntas. After the demise of Sri Prakash Shetty, his wife Smt. Jyothi Prakash Shetty, the petitioner, submitted an application for renewal of lease. Initially, the application for renewal was rejected and the rejection order was subjected to Revision Petition No.140/2014 filed before the Joint Director. The Joint Director, vide order dated 04.02.2015, allowed the revision petition. Respondent No.4 by notification dated 03.12.2015, granted quarry lease license to the petitioner by reducing the area. As stated above, initially, the license was granted for an area measuring to the extent of 3 acres 36 guntas and by subsequent notification, the area was reduced to 1 acre only, from Sy.No.172. It seems that the petitioner then obtained certain necessary certificates. There was also an earlier round of litigation in the nature of filing writ petition in W.P.No.27215/2019 before this Court. Be 4 that as it may, the petitioner was issued the notice dated 06.05.2022, whereby the petitioner is called upon to make payment of fine/penalty to the tune of Rs.11,97,80,277/-.
3. It is stated in the notice that in exercise of drone survey work undertaken on 10.02.2022, the petitioner has submitted an objection to the said demand notice on 23.08.2022. The copy of the same is placed on record at Annexure-L.
4. The sum and substance of the objection is, firstly, no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner before issuing a notice, which is in the nature of final notice calling upon the petitioner to pay certain amount of penalty and fine; and secondly, the exercise of conducting drone survey undertaken by the authority was in absence of the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in somewhat similar circumstance, namely, no 5 opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner, the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.33163/2019, vide order dated 04.02.2020, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the petitioner was protected by clause (iii) of the said order, whereby the authority was directed not to initiate any recovery unless the final order is passed by the authority by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The copy of the order dated 04.02.2020 is placed on record at Annexure-M.
6. At this stage, Sri S.S.Mahendra, learned Additional Government Advocate, on instructions submits that the State Government and its authority are ready to treat the notice dated 06.05.2022 as a show cause notice issued to the petitioner.
7. In our opinion, by accepting the statement of Sri S.S.Mahendra, learned Additional Government 6 Advocate, the petition itself can be disposed of with the following directions:
i. The notice dated 06.05.2022 be treated as a show-cause notice issued to the petitioner and the petitioner, in response to this show-cause notice, is permitted to submit a fresh reply to the notice within three weeks from today.
ii. The respondent-Authority is of the opinion that an exercise of survey through drone is necessary, such as, an exercise of drone survey be conducted in presence of the petitioner by fixing a particular date and an intimation of such drone survey be forwarded to the petitioner.
iii. Thus, by considering the reply filed by the petitioner and by conducting the drone survey in presence of the petitioner, the authority to pass an order afresh, as early as possible and not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of the reply submitted on behalf of the petitioner.
iv. Unless the order is passed by the authority, as directed by this Court, no recovery be 7 initiated or no adverse action be taken against the petitioner on the basis of notice dated 06.05.2022.
The petition is disposed of with the above terms.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE ssb