Karnataka High Court
Sri. Sathya Raj K K vs State Of Karnataka on 14 September, 2023
Bench: Chief Justice, Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:33341-DB
WP No. 20953 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 20953 OF 2022 (GM-MM_S)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SATHYA RAJ K K,
S/O SRI D KENCHEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF KODISHETTIPURA,
JAKKANAHALLI,
SRIRANGAPATTNA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. D L N RAO., SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. ANIRUDH ANAND.,ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by SHARADA AND:
VANI B
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY,
M S BUILDING,
DR B R AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:33341-DB
WP No. 20953 of 2022
3. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST,
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY,
MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA - 571 401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S S MAHENDRA.,PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE
FOR R1 TO 3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED NOTICE BEARING DMG/SR.GEO/QL/2021-2/6973
DATED 19.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT VIDE
ANNEXURE-D IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. This petition seeks to lay a challenge to the Demand Notice dated 19.03.2022 issued by the 3rd respondent - Senior Geologist at Annexure-D whereby, he is required to remit a sum of Rs.18,58,797/-. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner finds fault with the demand in question mainly on the ground of absence of opportunity of hearing; he complains of violation of the principles of natural justice. He submits that the substratum of Demand Notice is contrary to the stand taken by the respondents and the findings recorded by a Co-ordinate -3- NC: 2023:KHC:33341-DB WP No. 20953 of 2022 Bench of this Court in W.P No.25/2020 that was disposed off on 07.01.2020.
2. After service of notice, the respondents have entered appearance through the learned Additional Government Advocate. They have filed the statement of objections on 21.12.2022 opposing the petition essentially contending that: the Demand Notice is issued only after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner; in important exercise that generated the notice, he had participated and thus, there is no violation of the principles of natural justice. Even otherwise, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the petitioner should be relegated to Revisional Remedy availing under Rule 53 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, since the same is alternate and effective remedy, there being no extraordinary circumstances warranting the invocation of the writ jurisdiction constitutionally vested under Articles 226 & 227.
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:33341-DB WP No. 20953 of 2022
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, we are inclined to grant a limited indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the submission of the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner. In the earlier W.P No.25/2020, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has recorded a prima facie finding as to there being no illegality in the grant of the lease; a finding is also recorded as to there being no breach of conditions of lease. The petitioner and the respondents herein happened to be respondents in the said writ petition. Therefore, there is some force in the submission of the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the substratum of the impugned Demand Notice appears to be inconsistent with the observations made in the said writ petition. This aspect has not been dealt with in the impugned Notice and that constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record, warranting interference of this Court for setting the same right.
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC:33341-DB WP No. 20953 of 2022
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is also justified in submitting that the demand could not have been raised till after drone survey of the subject land was undertaken as was opined by the officials of the Mines Department which is reflected in the Notice dated 29.12.2020, whereof avails at Annexure-R3 to the statement of objections. The officials also stated that on the basis of the outcome of the said survey, petitioner should be issued notice and thereafter action should follow. This part of the said annexure in the vernacular reads as under:
"11) ¤RgÀvÉUÁV qÉÆæÃ£ï ¸ÀªÉð/¸ÉPëÀ£ï ¸ÀªÉð ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt, MvÀÄÛªÀj UÀÄgÀÄw¸ÀĪÀ CªÀ±åÀ PÀvÉ EzÀÄÝ, GvÁàzÀ£É gÁdzsÀ£À ¨ÉÃrPÉ ¥ÀjõÀÌgÀuÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÀAqÀ ºÁUÀÆ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß dgÀÄV¸ÀĪÀ C©ü¥ÁAiÀÄ C©ü¥Áæ¬Ä¹zÉ.
F ªÉÄîÌAqÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À §UÉÎ £ÉÆÃn¸ï eÁj ªÀiÁr ¸Àj¥Àj¹PÉƼÀî®Ä UÀqÄÀ ªÀÅ «¢ü¹ vÀ¦àzÀ°è PÀ®Äè UÀt UÀÄwÛUÉ gÀzÀÄÝ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄAr¹zÉ."
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate despite of vehement submission is not in a position to demonstrate from the records that this drone survey was undertaken and notice on the basis of its outcome was issued to the petitioner. Merely because at certain stages of the -6- NC: 2023:KHC:33341-DB WP No. 20953 of 2022 proceedings a representative of the petitioner had participated, cannot be construed as a reasonable opportunity given to him. Obviously, impugned Notice of the kind raises in the complexity of proceedings held at various stages. A citizen cannot be asked to shell out money by raising a demand without giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The principles of natural justice as of necessity need to be followed, unless excluded by law. The sanctity attached these principles is explained by the Apex Court in AJIT KUMAR NAG vs. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, (2005) 07 SCC 764 at para 44:
"... We are further aware that it has been stated that apart from Laws of Men, Laws of God also observe the rule of audi alteram partem. It has been stated that the first hearing in human history was given in the Garden of Eden. God did not pass sentence upon Adam and Eve before giving an opportunity to show cause as to why they had eaten the forbidden fruit. ..."
6. The contention of learned Additional Government Advocate that the petitioner has got an alternate and equally efficacious remedy of revision under Rule 53 and -7- NC: 2023:KHC:33341-DB WP No. 20953 of 2022 therefore, he should be relegated to the same does not much impress us. True it is that at times the remedy of revision is treated as an alternate and efficacious remedy. However, when a writ of certiorari is sought for on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice like the audi alteram partem, an aggrieved citizen cannot be asked to go elsewhere for working out his remedies as a matter of course. We are also aware that the violation of principles of natural justice can be urged as a ground in revisional jurisdiction. However, where such a violation is prima facie demonstrable from the material on record, a Writ Court cannot deny relief to the aggrieved. The mandate for fairness in the public functions will fail, if the functionaries do not keep in view the angel of justice and fairness. A view to the contra, would defeat the broad delineation of writ remedies constitutionally internalized freeing our system from the shackles of English Law of Writs. It is gainful to recall what Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes, more than a century ago had said in DAVIS vs. MILLS, 194 U.S. 451 (1904):
-8-
NC: 2023:KHC:33341-DB WP No. 20953 of 2022 "Constitutions are intended to preserve practical and substantial rights, not to maintain theories.."
In the above circumstances, this writ petition is allowed in part; a writ of certiorari issues quashing the impugned Demand Notice; matter is remitted back for consideration afresh in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Nothing hereinabove observed shall be construed as expressing any opinion on the merits of matter. All contentions of the parties are kept open.
Costs made easy.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE cbc List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23