Karnataka High Court
Mspl Limited vs State Of Karnataka on 2 August, 2022
Author: Alok Aradhe
Bench: Alok Aradhe
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.P. NO.14760 OF 2022 (GM-MM-S)
BETWEEN:
1. MSPL LIMITED
A COMPANY WITHIN THE MEANING
OF COMAPNIES ACT 2013
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT BALDOTA ENCLAVE
ABHERAJ BALDOTA ROAD
HOSAPETE 583203
REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MR. K.A.V. PRASAD
(VICE PRESIDENT LEGAL).
2. MR. RAHULKUMAR N. BALDOTA
S/O NARENDRAKUMAR A. BALDOTA
AGED 54 YEARS
HAVING OFFICE AT BALDOTA ENCALVE
ABHERAJ BALDOTA ROAD
HOSAPETE 583203.
... PETITIONERS
(BY MR. K.G. RAGHAVAN, SR. COUNSEL FOR
MR. ADITYA NARAYAN, ADV.,)
2
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
COMMERCE AND INDUSTIRES DEPARTMENT
(MSME AND MINES) KARNATAKA
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT
VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE 560001
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT
FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE
REGIONAL OFFICE (SOUTH ZONE)
KENDRIYA SADAN, 4TH LFOOR
E AND F WINGS, 17TH MAIN ROAD
KORAMNGALA II BLOCK
BANGLAORE 560034
ALSO AT:
INDIRA PARAYARN BHAWAN
JOR BAGH ROAD, LODI ROAD
NEW DELHI 110003
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA
FOREST, ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT
DEPARTMENT
KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT
ROOM NO 448, 4TH FLOOR
GATE 2, M S BUILDING
BENGALURU 560001
REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (FORESTS).
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R1 & R3
MR. B.M. KUSHALAPPA, CGC FOR R2)
---
3
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION
DATED 13/06/2022 STYLED AS SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
BEARING NUMBER NO.CI 120 MMM 2021 (ANNEXURE-A)
ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1. A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO FORTHWITH
EXTEND THE TERM OF THE LETTER OF INTENT UNTIL THE
ISSUANCE/TRANSFER OF FOREST CLEARANCE IN FAVOUR
OF THE PETITIONER NO.1. A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO PERFORM ALL ACTIONS
REQUIRED TO TRANSFER AND VEST THE FOREST
CLEARANCE IN RESPECT OF THE MINING LEASE OVER AN
AREA OF 30.09 HECTARES IN RAMANADURGA VILLAGE,
SANDUR TALUKA, BALLARI (KANHAIYALAL DUDHERIA,
ERSTWHILE ML NO.2563) IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE
PETITIONER NO.1 HAS BEEN DECLARED SUCCESFUL
BIDDER VIDE LETTER NO.DMG-
1701216/2018/2019/20/5835 DATED 23/12/2019
FORTHWITH (ANNEXURE-J) OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE & ETC.
THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
State of Karnataka had put to an auction, lease in respect of land admeasuring 30.09 hectares of forest land situate in Ramanadurga Village, Sandur Taluk, Ballari District. The bid of petitioner No.1 (hereinafter referred to as 'MSPL Ltd.' For short) was accepted and a letter of intent dated 06.10.2018 was 4 issued in its favour. In the Letter of Intent, it was provided that MSPL Ltd. is required to obtain permissions and clearances, including a forest clearance under Section 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, within a period of 30 months from the date of issuance of Letter of Intent. On completion of the aforesaid formalities, the State of Karnataka is required to execute a mining lease and a mine development and production agreement with MSPL Ltd.
2. The State of Karnataka has issued a show cause notice dated 13.06.2022, the MSPL Ltd. have filed this petition, in which a writ of certiorari has been sought for to quash the notice dated 13.06.2022, in addition, the petitioners have sought a writ of mandamus directing the State Government to extend the term of Letter of Intent until the issuance/transfer of forest clearance and to perform all actions required 5 to transfer and vest the forest clearance in respect of mining lease.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the authority erred in posing itself a wrong question and therefore, has committed error of jurisdiction. It is further submitted that, the show cause notice has been issued to the MSPL Ltd., on the ground that the MSPL Ltd., has failed to obtain forest clearance which is not required. It is also submitted that, Section 8B in Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act has been substituted with effect from 28.03.2021. It is also submitted that in view of para 3.8 of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA v STATE OF KARNATAKA - (2017) 11 SCC 509, the impugned show cause notice is liable to be quashed. It is pointed out that even if relief of quashment of notice is not granted to the petitioners, they are entitled to 6 other reliefs sought for in the petition. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in KISHORE KUMAR KHAITAN & ANR. v PRAVEEN KUMAR SINGH - (2006) 3 SCC 312.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the impugned show cause notice has not been demonstrated to be an ex facie a 'nullity' or totally "without jurisdiction". It is further submitted that, petitioners have already entered appearance in the proceedings and have sought time to file reply. Therefore, the petitioners should be asked to submit a reply to the aforesaid show cause notice.
5. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the records. The 7 relevant extract of the impugned show cause notice dated 13.06.2022 reads as under:
"17. In view of the above, I am therefore directed to inform you to show cause why:
a. The Letter of Intent dated 06.10.2018 should not be declared as invalidated as per Proviso.1 to Rule 10(6) of Mineral Auction Rules, 2015.
b. An appropriate demand should not be raised for amounts liable to be paid by M/s. MPSL - the successful bidder from 22.06.2021 in terms of condition No.5 of the Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 30.07.2015 along with payment of applicable Interest in terms of Rule 14 of the Mineral Auction Rules, 2015."
6. The aforesaid notice has been issued on the basis of facts stated in para 1 to 16 therein. The 8 aforesaid notice has neither been shown to be ex facie a 'nullity' nor totally "without jurisdiction". It cannot be said that initiation of the proceedings is totally unauthorized and therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to direct that the petitioners shall be granted two weeks time to enable them to file reply to the impugned show cause notice. It will be open to the petitioners to raise all contentions as are permissible in law.
7. Needless to state that the aforesaid contentions so raised shall be adverted to by the authority after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. After conclusion of the proceedings initiated pursuance to the show cause notice dated 13.06.2022, the competent authority shall advert to the claim of the petitioners with regard to extension of Letter of Intent and grievance of the petitioners with regard to transfer and vesting of the forest clearance. 9 It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE SS