Karnataka High Court
Sri Manjunath Yellappa Timmapur vs State Of Karnataka on 26 October, 2023
Bench: Chief Justice, Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:38020-DB
WP No. 6136 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 6136 OF 2023 (GM-MM_S)
BETWEEN:
SRI.MANJUNATH YELLAPPA TIMMAPUR,
S/O YELLAPPA THIMMAPUR,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NAVANAGAR,
BEHIND POLICE STATION,
SHIGGAON TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT - 581 205.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRAKASH B S.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by SHARADA 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
VANI B
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES,
KARNATAKA (MSME & MINES),VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE VOMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY,
KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & CHAIRMAN
DISTRICT SAND MONITORING COMMITTEE,
HAVERI DISTRICT, HAVERI - 581 110.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:38020-DB
WP No. 6136 of 2023
4. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR &
REVISIONAL AUTHORITY,
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY,
NORTH ZONE, BUDA BUILDING,
BELLARI - 585 102.
5. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST,
DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY,
G G MAGAVI CHAMBERS, 2ND FLOOR,
P B ROAD, HAVERI - 581 110.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S S MAHENRA.,PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A)
CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE DEMAND
NOTICE DATED 29.04.2022 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR
GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, HAVERI
BEARING No.GABUEE/HEEBUHA/NOTICE/2022-23-282
DEMANDING A SUM OF Rs.1,18,63,056/- PRODUCED AS
ANNEXURE A PERSUE THE SAME AND GRANT THE FOLLOWING
RELIEF TO THE PETITIONER AND I) BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE
AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED DEMAND NOTICE DATED
29.04.2022 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT
OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, HAVERI BEARING
No.GABUEE/HEEBUHA/NOTICE/2022-23/282 DEMANDING A
SUM OF Rs.1,18,63,056/- PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND
ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:38020-DB
WP No. 6136 of 2023
JUDGMENT
Petitioner, a mining lease operator is invoking the
writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the Demand
Notice dated 29.04.2022 issued by the 5th respondent -
Senior Geologist at Annexure-A and the Revisional Order
dated 15.12.2022 issued by the 4th respondent -
Additional Director-cum-Revisional Authority at Annex-B.
The net effect of what is impugned is to compel the
petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,18,63,056/- by way of
royalty and penalty.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the
impugned demand and the levy are incompetent; the
answering respondents have ignored the payments made
by the petitioner by way of royalty since January 2019;
there is absolutely no material to assume that the
petitioner has transported an additional quantity of sand
i.e. 9788 Metric Tonnes unauthorisedly. The impugned
orders are made contrary to the principles of natural
justice. Even, the penalty is far in excess of what is
NC: 2023:KHC:38020-DB
WP No. 6136 of 2023
permissible under the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession
Rules, 1994. According to him, these lapses do constitute
errors apparent on the face of the record and therefore,
the impugned orders are liable to be set at naught.
3. Learned Principal Government Advocate appearing
for the respondents vehemently opposed the writ petition
making submission in justification of the impugned levy &
demand; he contends that due opportunity was given to
the petitioner and the impugned proceedings have been
drawn with his participation. At no point of time,
petitioner has made payment of royalty in respect of the
quantity of mineral in question. The Authorities having
considered all aspects of the matter have rightly levied the
royalty and penalty, which would go to the State
Exchequer. If there is any mistake in the quantification of
the penalty or royalty amount, it is open to the petitioner
to seek remedy under Rule 55 of the 1994 Rules. So
contending, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.
NC: 2023:KHC:38020-DB
WP No. 6136 of 2023
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the petition papers, we decline indulgence
in the matter broadly agreeing with the submission of
learned Principal Government Advocate. Firstly, the
Authorities after conducting due inspection and vigilance in
discharge of their official duties have quantified excess
mineral transported by the petitioner and i.e. 9788 Metric
Tonnes. Despite vociferous arguments, petitioner is not in
a position to demonstrate any error in the process of this
quantification and we cannot undertake a deeper
examination of the same in the judicial review under
Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. The vehement submission of the learned counsel for
the petitioner that his client has already made payments
has not been vouched by placing requisite material on
record, despite granting opportunity twice for this
purpose. Certain copies of statutory forms now placed on
record with a memo are not reflected in the original file at
the hands of the learned Principal Government Advocate.
NC: 2023:KHC:38020-DB
WP No. 6136 of 2023
After all, payments of the kind are always made by bank
cheques and the particulars thereof have not been
furnished by the petitioner. The repeated assertion that a
person has made the payment would not come to his aid
in the absence of evidentiary records.
6. The last submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner that the levy of penalty is far in excess of what
is permitted under the provisions of 1994 Rules does not
merit deeper examination at our hands. Learned Principal
Government Advocate is more than justified in drawing
our attention to the provisions of Rule 55 which is
structured in line with Section 152 of CPC, 1908; this
provision provides remedy at the departmental level and
the petitioner can have recourse to the same. In that
connection, all contentions are kept open.
7. The submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that his client had no reasonable opportunity of
participation in the proceedings is liable to be rejected
inasmuch as several notices were sent to him and he failed
NC: 2023:KHC:38020-DB
WP No. 6136 of 2023
to show cause against the proposal for the levy. Even the
Revisional Authority having looked into all aspects of the
matter has affirmed the demand. Such statutory orders
cannot be deeply examined by us as if we are a Court of
appeal. It hardly needs to be stated that the focal point
writ jurisdiction is the decision making process and not its
end product, namely the decision itself vide SUSHIL KUMAR
vs. STATE OF HARYANA, (2022) 3 SCC 203.
In the above circumstances and with the above
observations, this petition being devoid of merits is liable
to be and accordingly, dismissed, costs having been made
easy.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Snb,AHB
