Karnataka High Court
Sri Venkateshaiah H vs State Of Karnataka on 4 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:25956-DB
WP No. 4569 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 4569 OF 2024 (GM-MM-S)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI VENKATESHAIAH H
S/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KANNUR PALYA,
MARASANDRA POST,
KUDUR HOBLI,
MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT 562149
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRAKASH B S, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by PRABHAKAR AND:
SWETHA
KRISHNAN
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: High
Court of REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
Karnataka DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES
(MSME AND MINES)
VIKASA SOUDHA
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU 560001
2. THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
KHANIJA BHAVANA,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:25956-DB
WP No. 4569 of 2024
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU 560001
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
APPAJI LAYOUT, KOTTHIPURA VILLAGE,
RAMANAGAR 562127
4. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR AND REVISIONAL
AUTHORITY
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
SOUTH ZONE,
CA-4, 1ST 'D' CROSS, 4TH MAIN,
BLOCK 1, RAMAKRISHNA NAGARA,
MYSURU 570002
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.S.MAHENDRA, GA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN
THE NATURE OF A WRIT QUASHING THE ORDER DATED
11.06.2020 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, RAMANAGAR,
BEARING No.Gabuee/Voonira/Kagagu-1407(1408)/2020-21/717,
REDUCING AN EXTENT OF 3-00 ACRES OF LAND OUT OF THE
TOTAL EXTENT OF 6-00 ACRES OF LAND GRANTED FOR
QUARRYING BUILDING STONE UNDER QUARRYING LEASE
DEED No-1407 DATED 04.11.2019, THE ORDER DATED
11.06.2020 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HAS BEEN
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:25956-DB
WP No. 4569 of 2024
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N.V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA)
Heard learned advocate Mr. B.S.Prakash for the petitioner
and learned Government Advocate Mr. S.S.Mahendra who
appeared for the respondents upon service of copy of the petition
in advance.
2. The challenge in this petition is directed against amendment
order dated 10/11.06.2020 passed by the Deputy Director,
Department of Mines and Geology, Ramanagara reducing extent of
3 Acres of land out of total 6 Acres granted to the petitioner for
quarrying building stone under Quarrying Lease Deed No.1407
dated 04.11.2019. It is further prayed to set aside the order dated
27.11.2023 passed in Revision Petition, whereby the aforesaid
order dated 11.06.2020 came to be confirmed.
3. The facts in brief to be noticed with relevance for disposal of
this petition is that the petitioner was granted the quarrying lease in
NC: 2024:KHC:25956-DB
respect of land to an extent of area measuring 6 Acres in survey
No.15 of Choudibegur Village, Magadi Taluka, Ramanagar District.
The environment clearance was also obtained.
3.1 It is the case of the respondents in support of the order
reducing the area, that the Taluka Surveyor of the Assistant
Director, Land Records, Magadi as well as the Technical Officers of
the Office of the Deputy Director, Department of Mines and
Geology, Ramanagar conducted a joint survey and it was noticed
that there existed a Tar Road leading from Chowdibegur Village to
Chickmasakallu on the southern side of the area of 6 Acres granted
to the petitioner.
3.2 A joint survey report was submitted pursuant to which an
area of 6 Acres which was given to the petitioner was found to be
liable to be reduced for maintaining safety distance. Consequently,
the order was passed reducing the area to 3 Acres in exercise of
amending power under Rule 55 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral
Concessions Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1994
Rules).
NC: 2024:KHC:25956-DB
3.3 Rule 55 of the 1994 Rules reads as under,
"Any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in any
order passed by the Competent Authority, Director
or the State Government or any other authority or
officer under these rules and any error arising
therein from accidental slip or omission may,
within one year from the date of the order be
corrected by such authority or officer, as the case
may be.
Provided that no order prejudicial to any person
shall be passed unless he has been given a
reasonable opportunity of being heard."
4. While bare reading of the above Rule indicates that the
Competent Authority is empowered to correct mistakes of clerical
nature or errors arising out of accidental slips. However, even
while correcting such errors, as per proviso to the said Rule, the
person concerned has to be given reasonable opportunity of being
heard.
5. In this case, it is an admitted position that the petitioner was
not given opportunity of hearing at the initial stage while passing
the order. When Rule 55 of 1994 Rules in its Proviso specifically
mentions that no order prejudicial to any person shall be passed
unless he is given reasonable opportunity of hearing, it has to be
complied with at the very stage.
NC: 2024:KHC:25956-DB
6. An argument was sought to be advanced that the petitioner
had filed revision application and he was heard, therefore, the
requirement was complied with. The defect of not giving
opportunity of being heard is statutory contemplated to be afforded
at the initial stage itself. No order could have been passed by the
authority without giving opportunity of hearing for which the proviso
to Rule contains and express mandate.
7. The defect of non-compliance of the principals of natural
justice of not giving opportunity of being heard as such, could not
said to be have been cured when the revision application was
heard. It has to be granted by the stage when the statute has been
contemplated. Only then it will be become a reasonable
opportunity. It is a trite principle that when the statute provides the
things to be done in particular manner, it shall be done in the same
manner, when a particular stage is contemplated in the statute for
giving hearing, it should happen at the very stage and opportunity
has to be extended at the very stage.
NC: 2024:KHC:25956-DB
8. For the aforesaid reasons, impugned order dated
10/11.06.2020 is set aside only on the ground that there is non-
compliance of proviso of Rule 55 of the 1994 Rules by not giving
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing the order.
9. As a result, it is directed that the competent authority of the
respondent shall give hearing to the petitioner and pass a fresh
order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy
of this order. The petitioner may be intimated on the date when he
shall be heard by the authority.
10. In order to enable the authority to take the decision afresh
above, the impugned order dated 10/11.06.2020 is set aside.
10.1 It is clarified that setting aside of the impugned order is only
on the ground of non-observance of giving reasonable opportunity
of hearing to the petitioner.
10.2 It is further clarified that the Court has not gone into any
other aspect of merit and the Court has not expressed any opinion
on the merits.
NC: 2024:KHC:25956-DB
11. The present petition is partially allowed in terms of the
aforesaid observations and directions.
Sd/-
(N. V. ANJARIA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(K V ARAVIND)
JUDGE
RL/KPS
