MR. S. V. SRINIVASULU vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

W.P.No.31726/2018

- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2018

PRESENT

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.DEVDAS

WRIT PETITION NO.31726 OF 2018 (GM-MM-S) BETWEEN: MR.S.V.SRINIVASULU AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS HAVING HIS OFFICE AT OLD INCOME TAX OFFICE BUILDING NEAR SAHAKARI KALYANA MANTAPA N.C.COLONY, HOSAPETE – 583 203 ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI.ADITYA NARAYAN, ADVOCATE)

AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY THE

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

AND INDUSTRY

VIDHAN SOUDHA

BANGALORE – 560 001

GEOLOGY

5TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN

NO.49, RACE COURSE ROAD

BENGALURU – 560 001

REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR

DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY

3RD FLOOR, PERWEZ PLAZA

W.P.No.31726/2018

- 2 -

COLLEGE ROAD

HOSAPETE – 583 201

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)

---

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 28.03.2018 AT ANNEXURE-A AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND VIOLATIVE OF THE PETITIONER’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND ETC.

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

ORDER The petitioner, said to be the leaseholder in respect of ML No.2604 for mining of iron ore in Jaisingapur Village, Sandur Taluk, Ballari District, has preferred this writ petition on being aggrieved of the notice-cum-order dated 28.03.2018, as issued by the respondent No.3, wherein it is claimed that on re-examination of the accounts, the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,87,71,229/- for the year ending 2016-17, being the difference of royalty payable together with interest.

It is, inter alia, contended on behalf of the petitioner that the differential royalty cannot be revised retrospectively once it is paid by him and no interest is payable on the same; and the impugned demand has been raised without any prior

W.P.No.31726/2018

- 3 - notice. It is also contended that the representation made by the petitioner is not attended at by the authorities concerned; and the petitioner is ready to reconcile its accounts to recalculate the royalty. It has also been pointed out that a few other petitions of the similar nature, including W.P.No.29222/2017 are pending, wherein this Court has granted stay against coercive action for recovery of such an amount of penalty.

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 him to remit the differential royalty amount by way of the impugned notice-cum-order dated 28.03.2018, the petitioner was not served with a prior notice on the demand sought to be made about the differential royalty.

In the indisputable fact situation that the impugned notice-cum-order has been issued without extending an opportunity to the petitioner of hearing, we are of the view that the recovery under the said notice cannot be sustained.

W.P.No.31726/2018

- 4 - In our view, the interest of justice shall be served if the said notice-cum-order dated 28.03.2018 is treated to be a show cause notice and the petitioner is permitted to submit his specific reply to the allegations made therein, while leaving it open for the authorities to pass appropriate speaking order after reply/objections of the petitioner. The petitioner is granted four weeks’ time to file his reply/objections.

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

AHB