Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Karnataka High Court

S N Shrinivas Shetty vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 December, 2019

Bench: Chief Justice, Pradeep Singh Yerur

                            1




   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


        DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019

                        PRESENT

       THE HON'BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE

                          AND

    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
         WRIT PETITION NO. 29870 / 2019 (GM-MMS)

BETWEEN:

S.N. SHRINIVAS SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
(LATE) S. NARAYAN SHETTY
R/O SHIVARPATTNA VILLAGE
SHIVARPATTNA POST - 563 130
MALURU TALUKA
KOLAR DISTRICT
                                           ... PETITIONER

(BY SHRI R. G. KOLLE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
   REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
   VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU
   BENGALURU - 560 001

2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
   DEPT. OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES
   VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU
                                  2




     BENGALURU - 560 001

3. THE DIRECTOR & COMMISSIONER
   DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
   KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD
   BENGALURU - 560 001

4. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST &
   COMPETENT AUTHORITY
   DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
   KOLAR - 563 103

5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
   & CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT TASK FORCE (MINES)
   COMMITTEE, DC OFFICE COMPOUND
   KOLAR - 563 103
                                      .... RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI V. G. BHANU PRAKASH, AGA)

       THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH OR
SET ASIDE THE NOICE DATED 19.06.2019, FINAL NOTICE
DATED 26.04.2019 AND DEMAND LETTER DATED 14.02.2019
ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT SENIOR GEOLOGIST CALLING
UPON THIS PETITIONER TO PAY RS.09,82,17,606/- BEING
ALLEGED ARREARS OF DEAD RENT, ROYALTY & PENALTY,
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A, B & C RESPECTIVELY AND ALSO
BY    DECLARING   THAT     THE       5TH   RESPONDENT   DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER & CHAIRMAN OF DISTRICT TASK FORCE
(MINES) COMMITTEE HAS NO COMPETENCE PURSUANT TO
AMENDMENT TO RULE 8 (6) DATED 18.11.2017 TO ISSUE
                                  3




DIRECTIONS TO CARRY OUT DRONE SURVEY CONTRARY TO
RECOGNIZED TOTAL STATION & DGPS SURVEY AS PER RULE
33 OF MINERAL CONCESSION RULES, 1960 & RULE 12 (6) OF
MINERALS (OTHER THAN ATOMIC & HYDROCARBON ENERGY
MINERAL) RULES 2016 AND ETC.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                              ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

2. The challenge in this writ petition is to the notices at Annexures-A, B and C. By the said notices, a demand has been made for a sum of Rs.9,82,17,606/- from the petitioner. The demand is made on the basis of DGPS and drone survey.

3. On 16th September 2019, the following order was passed:

"The impugned order/final notice dated 26th April 2019 is based on the show cause notices dated 31st August 2018, 14th February 2019 and 6th March 2019.

The learned Additional Government Advocate shall file objections before the next date of hearing setting out whether the said notices were served to the petitioner and whether any reply was filed by him."

4. As of today, the State Government has not placed on record any document to show that a show cause notice was served to the petitioner along with a copy of DGPS and drone survey and other relevant documents calling upon him to submit a reply.

5. The learned Additional Government Advocate states that at the time of carrying out DGPS and drone survey, the petitioner was present. This statement is disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

6. The entire basis of demand was the data collected in DGPS and drone survey. The said demand could not have been raised as the survey was conducted without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and without giving an opportunity to raise any objection to the survey.

7. The learned Additional Government Advocate relied 5 upon a decision of this Court dated 28th November 2019 in W.P.No.13252/2019 which holds that per se, drone survey cannot be held to be bad in law or illegal. However, the same judgment also lays down that the aggrieved party can always contest the drone survey report by disputing its accuracy.

8. Therefore, the impugned demand made by the notices at Annexures-A, B and C cannot be sustained only on the ground of the breach of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, we pass the following order:

(i) The impugned notices at Annexures-A, B and C are hereby set aside;

(ii) It will be open for the respondents to serve a proper show cause notice to the petitioner setting out the basis of the proposed demand and also forwarding a copy of the report of DGPS and drone survey;

(iii) The respondents shall give an opportunity to the petitioner to file a reply to the show cause notice and to raise objections, if any, to the survey;

(iv) After following the aforesaid procedure, it will be open for 6 the respondents to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law;

(v) We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the merits of the demand which is set aside by this order;

(vi) Needless to add that the petitioner cannot be prevented from carrying out the quarrying operations only on the basis of the impugned demand which has been set aside by this order;

(vii) The petition is disposed of on the above terms.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-

JUDGE SN