Sri B S Pandurang Singh vs State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 3530 Kant

                              1


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

                          PRESENT

       THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE

                            AND

    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

       WRIT PETITION NO. 13104 OF 2021(GM-MM-S)

BETWEEN:

SRI B S PANDURANG SINGH
S/O LATE SRI B S SHANKAR SINGH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT FLAT 007, HOYSALA SAI SHELTER
23/1, DR RAJGOPAL ROAD
SANJAY NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560094

                                               ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI.RAVI.L.VAIDYA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 01

2. THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE - 01
                                2


3. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
GROUND FLOOR, KANDAYA BHAVANA
K G ROAD, BENGALURU - 09

                                               ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.S.S.MAHENDRA, AGA)

        THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i)ISSUE A WRIT OF

CERTIORARI, OR ANY ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF

CERTIORARI QUASHING THE NOTICE DATED 17/03/2017 (SEALED

AS 28TH MARCH) - BEARING NO.DMB/MLS/SIT/C.NO.19/14/2016-

17/9590 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-C AND

ETC.,


        THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING

THIS    DAY,   SACHIN   SHANKAR    MAGADUM     J.,   MADE   THE

FOLLOWING:


                            ORDER

Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice

for respondents.

2. The captioned writ petition is filed questioning the

impugned demand notice dated 17.3.2017 issued under

Section 21(5) of the Mines and Minerals(Development and

Regulation) Act, 1957 by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-C

and the consequent recovery notice dated 17.05.2021 issued

in Form No.40 for a sum of Rs.19,85,458/- as per Annexure-E.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

would vehemently argue and contend before this Court that

the impugned demand notice and consequent recovery notice

in Form No.40 are issued in gross violation of principles of

natural justice. The petitioner has taken a specific contention

that he does not hold mining lease and therefore, the

authorities cannot invoke the provisions of Section 21(5) or

Section 25 of the MMDR Act, 1957. He would place reliance

on the judgment rendered by a Co-Ordinate Bench of this

Court in W.P.No.50218/2019 disposed of on 10.3.2020 and

would contend that this Court in an identical case was pleased

to quash the impugned demand notice.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned AGA. Perused the grounds urged in the writ petition.

We have also given our anxious consideration to the judgment

rendered by the Co-Ordinate Bench in the aforesaid writ

petition.

5. The material on record clearly indicates that the

authority without affording any opportunity has passed the

impugned demand notice and consequent recovery notice as

per Annexures-C and E respectively. The expression natural

justice involves procedural requirements of fairness. Though

principles of natural justice are not embodied rules and are not

codified they are judge made rules. Essentially natural justice

requires that a person receives a fair and unbiased hearing

before a decision is made that will negatively affect them. The

three main requirements of natural justice that must be met in

every case are: adequate notice, fair hearing and no bias.

These ingredients are missing in the present case on hand and

therefore, the impugned notice dated 17.3.2017 as per

Annexure-C and consequent recovery notice dated 17.05.2021

as per Annexure-E are liable to be quashed and the matter

needs to be remitted back to the authority for fresh

consideration.

6. Accordingly, we pass the following:

ORDER

(i)The writ petition is allowed.

(ii) The impugned notice dated 17.3.2017 at Annexure-C

and the consequent recovery notice dated 17.05.2021 issued

in Form No.40 for a sum of Rs.19,85,458/- at Annexure-E by

respondent No.2 are hereby quashed.

(iii) The respondent No.2 is directed to afford an

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner herein and pass

appropriate orders after considering the reply in accordance

with law as expeditiously as possible and in any event, within

a period of three months from today.

No order as to costs.

The pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand

disposed of.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

*alb/-