Mr D Hanumantharaya vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 12110 Kant

                          1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                       PRESENT
         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. NARENDAR
                         AND
     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

       WRIT PETITION.NO.5653 OF 2022(S-KSAT)

BETWEEN:

MR D HANUMANTHARAYA
SON OF MR.K.DODDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT,
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY,
KAHNIJA BHAVAN,
DEVARAJ URS ROAD
(RACE COURSE ROAD)
BENGALURU - 560 001
                                         ...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. KUSUMA .R. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI. LAKAMAPURMATH CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
       COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT
       VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001

2.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
       COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT
       (MSME AND MINES) VIKAS SOUDHA
       BENGALURU - 560 001
                           2



3.   THE DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
     KHANIJA BHAVAN
     DEVARAJ URS ROAD (RACE COURSE ROAD)
     BENGALURU - 560 001

4.   THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF MINES AND
     GEOLOGY(ADMN.) KHANIJA BHAVAN
     DEVARAJ URS ROAD(RACE COURSE ROAD)
     BENGALURU - 560 001

5.   THE LOKAYUKTA
     REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
     DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
     BENGALURU - 560 001

6.   THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES-2
     KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
     DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
     BENGALURU - 560 001

                                        ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. SHILPA S. GOGI, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4,
    SRI ASHWIN S. HALADY, ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R6)

    THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE AN
ORDER, DIRECTION, WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI,
QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 22/02/2022 PASSED BY
KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU
IN MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.464/2021, WHICH IS
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

     THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR   JUDGMENT    ON  03.08.2022, COMING ON   FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT' THIS DAY, RAJENDRA
BADAMIKAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                   3



                               ORDER

This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of

Constitution of India seeking writ in the nature of certiorari

quashing the order dated 22.02.2022 passed by the

Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru in

Misc.A.No.464/2021 in Application No.6178/2018.

Application No.6178/2018 was filed for quashing the Articles

of charge leveled against the petitioner dated 02.08.2016

bearing No.LOK/ARE-2/14-A/ENQ-384/2013 vide Annexure-

B(A-11).

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner

was working as a FDA in department of Mines and Geology

and he has completed 35 years of service in different

capacities. He was transferred to the office of the Deputy

Director of Mines and Geology, Ilkal, Bagalkot District as he

is specialized in processing of mining matters. As such on the

request of the Director of Mines and Geology, the petitioner

was sent on deputation to the office of the 3rd respondent. In

the office of the 3rd respondent, he was scrutinizing the

documents submitted by the lessees and submitting the

report.

3. It is the contention that the grant of mining lease

is done by the State Government under Section 10 of the

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957

(for short 'MMDR Act') and in order to process the application

and forwarding to the State Government, the powers have

been delegated to the Director of Mining and Geology. The

petitioner asserted that one Mr.Ram Rao Poal made

application seeking grant of mining lease in respect of an

area measuring 70 acres which according to the Forest

department is a forest land. It is further asserted that much

before the petitioner being posted in the Mining Lease

Section, the check list was prepared and sent to the State

Government for grant of mining lease. The State

Government having regard to the report submitted by the

Deputy Commissioner, Bellary District, Bellary, the

application was sent to the Central Government seeking prior

approval under Section 5(1) of the MMDR Act. The Central

Government has granted prior approval under Section 5(1)

of the MMDR Act and thereafter, the State Government had

issued a notification, notifying the grant of mining lease in

favour of Mr.Ram Rao Poal over an extent of 70 acres.

4. It is further contended by the petitioner that even

when the grant of mining lease was sent and the application

for grant of mining lease was forwarded, the petitioner was

not working in the office of respondent No.3. He was on

deputation from 17.06.2009 and petitioner has nothing to do

with the notification issued by the State Government. It is

further asserted that after issuance of notification, file was

sent back to the Department of Mining and Geology to

survey and demarcating the area for executing mining lease

deed in favour of Mr.Ram Rao Poal. It is his specific

contention that during this time he noticed a letter from

Deputy Commissioner requesting to await grant of mining

lease till survey of area is done and as such on 18.07.2019

he put up a note to the Director of Mines and Geology

pointing out that the Deputy Commissioner has written a

letter not to consider the application as the lands claimed is

un-surveyed and hence, he has put a note to withhold the

notification dated 18.07.2019 issued by the State

Government. It is further contended that note sheet put up

by the petitioner as SDA was forwarded to the

Superintendent and the Additional Director of Mines and

Geology who concurred with the petitioner and on the basis

of the said note sheet Director of Mines and Geology,

addressed a letter on 13.08.2009 to the State Government

to withhold the notification dated 18.07.2019. It is his

further contention that State did not agree with the views of

the Director of Mines and Geology on the ground that the

notification has already been issued and directed the Director

to proceed for execution of the lease deed which was done

by the Director in pursuance of the direction issued by the

State Government.

5. He has further contended that the Government

has referred various matters for investigation to Lokayuktha

under Section 7(2)(A) of the Karnataka Lokayuktha Act and

the Karnataka Lokayuktha has submitted a report stating

that grant of mining lease in favour of Mr.Ram Rao Poal is

contrary to Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act and

directed to take steps for cancellation of mining lease

executed in favour of Mr.Ram Rao Poal besides

recommending to initiate action against officials who were

responsible for issuance of notification. According to him he

has no role whatsoever in the execution of lease deed, for

issuance of notification and for the latches on the part of the

higher officers he has been made as a scapegoat and when

enquiry was initiated against him he challenged the same

before the KAT in Application No.6178/2018, which came to

be dismissed. He has filed Misc. Application No.464/2021 for

recalling the said order but again same was rejected by

impugned order dated 22.02.2022. Hence, this writ.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned counsel appearing for respondents and learned HCGP.

7. It is very strange as well as surprising to note that

petitioner who has no prima-facie any role or authority in

executing lease deed or issuance of notification is called upon

to explain the charge attributing authority to him regarding

rendering opinion with regard to status of land over which

mining lease has been granted. Admittedly he has no authority

in lending any opinion with regard to status of land in which

mining lease has been granted. Neither the scheme of the act

nor the rules or the hand book of the office procedure, prima-

facie vest or mandate any duty on petitioner to opine regarding

the status of the land as to whether it is a forest land or non-

forest land or revenue land.

8. Further it is also important to note here that the

application for mining lease is required to be in Form-A of

Schedule-I of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. The

procedure includes obtaining opinion for NOC from Revenue

Department as well as Forest Department. The only allegation

against the petitioner is that despite there being an objection

by the Deputy Commissioner the petitioner has put up the file

to his superiors. But it is to be noted here that the petitioner is

not an authority to take a decision and he has only put up a file

and the ultimate decision is required to be taken by his higher

officers. He has no executive role and he is not a decision

making authority.

9. Apart from that, Annexure-A4, the note sheet

clearly disclose that the petitioner has put up a note to

withhold the notification in view of the letter received by the

Deputy Commissioner, Bellary and in view of the decision in

Writ Petition No.20289/2007 on the file of this Court. In fact

Annexure-A4 discloses that the note sheet submitted by the

petitioner was accepted and the letter was also addressed as

per Annexure-A5 on the basis of the note sheet of the

petitioner to withhold the mining notification. Very

interestingly, the same was not accepted by the Government

and there was a direction to execute a lease deed and

accordingly, Director has executed the lease deed. What role

is played by the petitioner in getting the lease deed executed is

not at all forthcoming but on the contrary, records disclose that

in fact the petitioner has put up a note for withdrawal of the

notification itself. But ignoring that, the State Government has

directed the Director to execute the lease deed and now the

petitioner is being targeted on the ground that he has put up a

note. But the note put up by the petitioner is otherwise against

the issuance of notification and not in favour of issuing the

notification.

10. Apart from that when initial note sheet was put up

and notification was issued, admittedly the petitioner was not

working in the office of respondent No.3. He was posted there

on deputation subsequently on 17.06.2009, which is an

undisputed fact. On 01.09.2009 he put up a note against

executing lease deed and specifically asserted that the dispute

regarding the land being forest land is yet to be ascertained as

survey is not completed in view of the letter from Deputy

Commissioner. But his opinion was over ruled by the

Government though it is accepted by his higher officers and

Government has directed to execute the lease deed. In what

way the petitioner is concerned in execution of the lease deed

or issuance of notification is not at all forthcoming and very

interestingly, he has been charge sheeted in departmental

enquiry. It is evident that he has been targeted only in order to

save the skin of the higher officers though he has worked

honestly and in the interest of State only. Further there is no

evidence as to what was the damage caused because of the act

of the petitioner to the State Exchequer.

11. Apart from that the petitioner himself was examined

as a witness before the enquiry officer in enquiry initiated

against Retired Deputy Director Sri.D.R.Veeranna in DE

No.67/2012. There it is clearly held that on the basis of the

opinion given by the present petitioner there was a

recommendation to withhold the notification of granting lease

in favour of one Mr.Ram Rao Poal and considering this evidence

the said departmental enquiry were ended in favour of the

Deputy Director Sri.D.R.Veeranna. Very interestingly,

thereafter the present petitioner has been targeted. The charge

against the present petitioner is on the basis of the report of

the Lokayuktha that there was non-consideration of the fact

that the area is a forest land and he has failed to discharge his

duty. But the note sheet put up by the petitioner himself as per

Annexure-A4 clearly disclose that he had put up a note

regarding withholding the notification itself in view of the

measurement of the land being undertaken and the letter of

Deputy Commissioner, Bellary. Very interestingly, while issuing

notification admittedly the petitioner was not working in the

office of respondent No.3. However, later on he put up a note

for withholding the notification but the same was not agreed

and he has consistently taken the same stand and he has also

deposed in the same way in the departmental enquiry against

Deputy Director. His evidence was accepted but now again he

himself has been targeted which is erroneous and he is being

made as a scapegoat.

12. Absolutely there is no evidence or document to

show that the petitioner has any executive role on decision

making authority. He has simply put up a note and that too for

withholding the notification, but the same was not accepted by

the Government and as per the direction of the Government

the Director has executed the lease deed. However, now again

the petitioner has been targeted in this regard. The decision

taking authority is the Government and it has ignored the

recommendations issued by the Director and now in order to

safeguard the higher officers, these FDAs' and SDAs' are being

targeted and there is absolutely no application of mind and

documents were also not verified and in a mechanical way the

departmental enquiry has been initiated by charging the

petitioner with delinquency. The rule enjoins certain officers in

higher cadre and it is their responsibility for recommending or

not recommending applications for grant of lease or license.

Admittedly the petitioner is not having any such authority.

There is no allegation that he has played any mischief and

played fraud.

13. Under these circumstances, the entire initiation of

proceedings is with malafide intention. The Tribunal has failed

to appreciate any of these aspects and in a mechanical way

rejected the claim of the petitioner which is against the

principles of natural justice. Under these circumstances, the

writ petition needs to be allowed and accordingly, we proceed

to pass the following:

ORDER

The writ petition is allowed.

The impugned order dated 22.02.2022 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru in Misc.A.No.464/2021 in Application No.6178/2018 is quashed and departmental enquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioner stands quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

NS CT:NR