NARESH NAYAK vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

W.P.No.4353/2017

- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018

PRESENT

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S. SUJATHA

WRIT PETITION No.4353 OF 2017 (GM – MM – S) BETWEEN:

NARESH NAYAK S/O SHESHAGIRI NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS, FLAT NO.8, SHREE SAI, OLD INCOME TAX ROAD, VIDYANAGAR, HUBLI - 580 021.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI R.G.KOLLE, ADV.)

AND:

W.P.No.4353/2017

- 2 - 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS, PORTS & INLAND WATER TRANSPORT, DHARWAD

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP.)

---

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 14.03.2016 ISSUED BY R-3 SENIOR GEOLOGIST, CALLING UPON THIS PETITIONER TO PAY RS.23,14,987/- AS AN ARREARS OF ROYALTY, IN ADDITION TO THE DEDUCTION AND RECOVERY BY WAY OF ADJUSTMENT IN THE WORK CONTRACT BILLS, RELEASED BY THE R-4 & 5 PWD EXECUTIVE ENGINEERS OF GOVT. OF KARNATAKA; AND FOR HAVING CREDITED THE SAME TO THE STATE TREASURY, IN TO THE ACCOUNT OF R-3 SENIOR GEOLOGIST, IN RESPECT OF QL.NO.854, FOR HAVING QUARRIED AND REMOVED 41,029 MT ORDINARY BUILDING STONES AS ON THE CLOSE OF 31.03.2015, AS HIGHLY ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND CONTRARY TO LAW VIDE ANNEX-A.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.No.4353/2017

- 3 -

O R D E R At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal at this stage itself. The petitioner, said to be the leaseholder of QL No.854 in respect of the land situated at Yemmatti village in Kalaghatgi Taluka, Dharwar District, has preferred this writ petition on being aggrieved of the notice dated 14.03.2016 (Annexure-A), as issued by the respondent No.3, wherein a demand is made for a sum of Rs.23,14,987/- being the arrears of royalty on the allegation of the petitioner not having obtained the mineral dispatch permits. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents though had attempted to justify the action of the respondents, but could not dispute the fundamental fact that before calling upon the petitioner to remit the amount by way of the impugned notice dated 14.03.2016, the petitioner was not served with a prior notice of the demand sought to be made. In the indisputable fact situation that the impugned notice has been issued without extending an opportunity of

W.P.No.4353/2017

- 4 - hearing to the petitioner, we are of the view that the recovery under the said notice cannot be sustained. In our view, the interest of justice shall be served if the said notice dated 14.03.2016 is treated to be a show cause notice and the petitioner is permitted to submit his specific reply to the allegations made therein within four weeks, while leaving it open for the authorities to pass appropriate speaking order within four weeks after reply/objections of the petitioner. In the interest of justice, it is also considered appropriate to provide that until final decision in the matter after receiving the reply/objections, the respondents shall not adopt coercive recovery proceedings against the petitioner. The petition stands disposed of with the observations, directions and requirements aforesaid. No costs.

Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/- JUDGE

Dvr: