Karnataka High Court
S D Manjunath @ S D Manju vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 November, 2013
Bench: Chief Justice, S.N.Satyanarayana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013
PRESENT
THE HON' BLE MR.D.H.WAGHELA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
W.P. No.21062/2012(GM-MM-S)
BETWEEN
S.D.MANJUNATH @ S.D. MANJU
S/O.LATE DEVARASE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT SALIGRAMA HOBLI
K.R.NAGAR TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT-571604
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SHARATH S.GOWDA, ADV., )
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
REPRESENTED BY SENIOR GEOLOGIST
KUVEMPUNAGAR
MYSORE-570023
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MYSORE DISTRICT
MYSORE-570005
3. TAHASILDAR
K.R.NAGAR TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT-571602
4. DEPUTY TAHASILDAR
SALIGRAMA
K.R.NAGAR TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT-571604
2
5. VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT
SALIGRAMA
K.R.NAGAR TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT-571604.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.G.NARENDAR, A.G.A)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER/NOTICE DATED 27.08.2003 ISSUED BY
RESPONDENT No.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND QUASH NOTICE
DATED 10.09.2008 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE
ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, SATYANARAYANA. J, MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner herein is impugning notices dated 27.08.2003 and 10.09.2008 issued by respondent Nos.1 and 3 respectively at Annexures `A` and `B` as well as series of notices dated 05.03.2011, 28.06.2011 and 13.03.2012 issued by respondent No.5 at Annexures 'C', `D` and 'E' respectively to the writ petition.
2. Petitioner was awarded quarrying lease bearing No.839 for removal of building stone in the leased area 3 situated at Chikkanayakanahalli village, K.R. Nagar Taluk, Mysore District. The lease was granted for a period of five years commencing from 01.08.1997. It is stated that within three months after having commenced quarrying work from 01.08.1997, petitioner had met with an accident and suffered severe injuries, which disabled him from carrying on the quarrying work. Accordingly, he discontinued the same. It is also stated that since he did not resume the quarrying activity for more than a year, by virtue of Rule 6 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, the lease granted in his favour for quarrying of building stone stood discontinued. Since the lease was discontinued and quarrying activity was not carried out by him after three months from the date of issue of quarrying licence, he states that he is not liable to pay any royalty to the licensing authority.
3. Petitioner received a notice dated 27.08.2003 issued by respondent No.1 calling upon him to pay a 4 sum of Rs.1,53,141/- towards the arrears of royalty due to Government for the quarrying activity conducted by him under the quarrying lease granted in his favour. It is stated that respondents did not take any action to recover the same pursuant to said notice. It is only on 10.09.2008, that respondent No.3 issued notice (second notice) for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,55,739/-, which is inclusive of the earlier demand of Rs.1,53,141/- plus interest thereon up to the date of second notice. The demand for recovery of Rs.2,55,739/- is with simple interest of 15% p.a. from the date of notice i.e., 10.09.2008. On service of such notice, a legal notice was issued by petitioner on 04.08.2010 through his Counsel bringing to the notice of respondent No.2 that he did not carry out quarrying activity pursuant to quarrying lease bearing No.839 dated 01.08.1997 for the reason that he met with an accident within three months from the date of commencement of quarrying activity. As such, he is not liable to pay any royalty. It was also stated in the notice that none of the officers of 5 respondent No.2 visited / inspected the site of quarrying to ascertain whether the petitioner was carrying on the quarrying activity or not. In that view of the matter, petitioner is not liable to pay any royalty since he has not conducted any quarrying activity in the area under which, quarrying lease was granted in his favour. It is further stated that, even after service of legal notice to respondent No.2, further notices were issued by respondent No.5, on 05.03.2011, 28.06.2011 and 13.03.2012 for recovery of the aforesaid amount. Hence, the present writ petition is filed challenging the aforesaid illegal demand.
4. In this proceeding, upon service of notice, respondents entered appearance, filed their statement of objections bringing to the notice of this Court that the petitioner indeed carried out quarrying activity over the entire period of lease. During the period he carried out quarrying activity and has excavated 7500 Metric Tonnes of building stone and crushed the same into 6 jelly in the crusher that was established by him in the quarrying unit and generated revenue by the aforesaid quarrying and crushing activity. It was further contended that the petitioner also secured permits for removal of material from the site of quarrying. Therefore, the averment that no quarrying activity was conducted by the petitioner after lapse of three months from the date of commencement of quarrying lease is stated to be factually incorrect. Thus the basis of the petition stands denied, without any further attempt on the part of the petitioner to establish no activity of quarrying as alleged.
5. Having heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the contesting respondents, it is seen that the demand of 2003 is initially challenged in the year 2012 by filing WP No.12786/2012 seeking to quash the first notice which was issued on 27.08.2003 and subsequently the same was withdrawn by an order of 7 this Court on 20.06.2012 with liberty to file fresh petition to challenge the notice dated 27.08.2003 as well as the subsequent recovery notice dated 10.09.2008. In the process, there is a delay of 9 years in filing the first petition and 10 years in filing the present petition, which is not satisfactorily explained. In view of the delay and latches in challenging the notice of recovery which was issued in the year 2003 nearly for a period of 9 years, there is no justifiable ground to consider the prayers made in the petition.
6. As noticed earlier, the petitioner has made an earlier attempt in WP No.12786/2012 seeking quashing of notice dated 27.08.2003 and now, as revealed in the statement of objections filed on behalf of the State, the initial endorsement dated 10.09.2008 issued by way of revenue recovery certificate demanding Rs.2,55,739/- along with simple interest at the rate of 15% is indirectly called into question, after five years, without admittedly making any payment either in the form of 8 simple interest or the amount. Therefore, the conclusion is inescapable that the petitioner is resorting to remedy of Writ Petitions only for avoiding the liability brought to his notice since 2003, without contesting the first demand for 9 years.
7. Accordingly, without going into merits, if any, of the contentions of the petitioner, and only on the ground of delay and laches, the present petition is found to be not only not maintainable, but an abuse of process of Court and hence it is dismissed with cost quantified at Rs.10,000/-, which shall be paid by the petitioner to respondent No.1 within 15 days.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE mv/sma