Karnataka High Court
Mr H K Lakshman Gowda vs State Of Karnataka on 15 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:48221-DB
WP No. 15692 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 15692 OF 2024 (GM-MM_S)
BETWEEN:
1. MR. H.K. LAKSHMAN GOWDA
S/O. MR. H.T. KRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS OLD
RESIDING AT MYSORE-MADIKERE ROAD
CHILKUNDA VILLAGE
HANAGODU HOBLI
HUNSURU TALUK
MYSORE - 571 105.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. LAKSHMY IYENGAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI T.S. SURESH, ADVOCATE)
Digitally AND:
signed by
AMBIKA H B 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
High Court REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR GEOLOGIST
KHANIJA BHAVAN, KBL CENTURY PHASE-I
of Karnataka
NEAR KSRTC LAYOUT
RAYANAKERE POST
YADAHALLI ROAD, MYSORE - 570 008.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
KARNATAKA FOREST DEPARTMENT
OFFICE OF DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
HUNSUR, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 105.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:48221-DB
WP No. 15692 of 2024
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
3RD GATE, 5TH FLOOR
M.S. BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
AND INDUSTRIES (MSME AND MINES)
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001.
5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
SECRETARY OF FINANCE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, MORE
SPECIFICALLY A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARIFIED
MANDAMUS, FIRSTLY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED LETTER DATED
20.03.2024 (ATTACHED AS ANNEXURE-A) ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT No. 1 STOPPING THE MINING ACTIVITIES GRANT
TO THE PETITIONER UNDER QUARRYING LEASE/LICENSE (No.
554), FOR BEING ILLEGAL, AND ISSUED MECHANICALLY WITHOUT
CONSIDERING ALL THE NECESSARY AND RELEVANT FACTS AND
WITHOUT ANY APPLICATION OF MIND AND IN BLATANT
VIOLATION OF THE LAW AND PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE
AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
NC: 2024:KHC:48221-DB
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGEMENT
(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)
Heard learned Senior Advocate Smt. Lakshmy Iyengar for
learned advocate Mr. T.S. Suresh for the petitioner and learned
Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar for the
respondents.
2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the
petitioner has prayed to set aside the notice dated 20.03.2024
issued by respondent No.1 - the Senior Geologist, Department of
Mines and Geology (Minerals), Mysuru. The said notice dated
20.03.2024 directs stoppage of building stone quarry operations in
Sy Nos.22 and 23 at Athiguppe Village, Hunsuru Taluka, Mysuru
District. The petitioner has further prayed to permit resumption of
his mining / quarrying activities in the said lands as per the
quarrying licence on deed No.554 registered with the office of Sub-
Registrar, Hunsuru Taluka renewing the lease.
NC: 2024:KHC:48221-DB
2.1 Two grounds are indicated in the said notice dated
20.03.2024 stopping of the quarrying operations. Firstly, as per the
government notification dated 04.08.1900, 180 Acres of area in
Sy.No.7 as well as C and D area in Sy.No.23 in Athiguppe Village
were handed over to the Forest Department as per the government
order dated 01.08.1964.
3. It is stated that if the boundary is drawn, the area would fall
within Kallubetta Block No.1 as State Forest Area. The second
reason mentioned is that Sy.Nos.22 and 23 are C and D category
lands which are already transferred from Revenue Department to
the Forest Department and that the Revenue Department has
removed certain areas from Sy.No.22 as well as from Sy No.23
and computerized the same in the revenue records.
3.1 While challenging the said notice dated 20.03.2024, the case
of the petitioner is that the petitioner is lessee in the said survey
numbers and the lease is to subsist for thirty years upto
06.11.2045. It is the case that licence for quarrying lease was
issued after joint inspection conducted by Tahsildar, Hunsuru
Taluka, Deputy Conservator of Forests, Hunsuru Division, Sub-
NC: 2024:KHC:48221-DB
Divisional Officer, Senior Geologist (Mines), Range Forest Officers
and staff of the Forest Department.
3.2 It was stated that various aspects were verified namely, that
the land was government kharab land, lying with the Revenue
Department and that the land was "C and D land" falling under
'Class D' category and was not taken over by the Forest
Department and that it was not reserved for any public purposes
and further that the land was not belonging to Forest Department,
nor was protected as Reserved Forest.
3.3 It is the case that on 16.09.2023, the forests officers
including the Deputy Conservator of Forests visited the place for
spot inspection upon an application given by the third parties. The
petitioner was also present. It is the say of the petitioner that his
quarry land was abruptly investigated without any prior intimation
and the staff of the petitioner was arbitrary to stop the quarry
operations on the ground that the survey numbers fell within the
Reserved Forest Area.
3.4 It is the say that the petitioner since 16.09.2023 made
several representations before various authorities but, they fell on
NC: 2024:KHC:48221-DB
the deaf ears. The show cause notice dated 16.11.2023 came to
be issued to the petitioner as to why stone quarry license issued to
him should not be cancelled. It is the submission of the petitioner
that various documents mentioned in the show cause notice were
not provided to the petitioner despite several requests and that the
petitioner could not defend his case without availability of the
required documents which were relied on by the authority in
respect of the allegations in the show cause notice.
4. It was stated that Task Force Committee headed by the
District Commissioner, Mysuru, thereafter, decided to cancel the
licence of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid notification dated
04.08.1900, which was the decision taken on 31.01.2024. It was
thereafter, the impugned notice dated 20.03.2024 was issued by
respondent No.1 ordering stoppage of mining activities .
5. There would be no gainsaying in that case of the petitioner
that the quarry lease area would not fall under the demarcated
forest is an issue to be investigated and searched on the basis of
the facts and the factual inquiry. This Court would not venture into
it. At the same time, the case of the petitioner as pleaded in the
petition and not denied is that, not only the petitioner was not
NC: 2024:KHC:48221-DB
provided the documents relied on in the notice, but the order was
passed mechanically and it was a non-speaking order. The
petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to defend his case.
5.1 In course of hearing of the petition, learned Additional
Government Advocate was at her receiving end, when the Court
asked whether the petitioner was given opportunity of hearing and
that all his documents in the said notice were supplied to him.
5.2 In the aforesaid view, in not supplying the complete material
relied on by the authorities to the petitioner and in not giving an
opportunity of being heard, there is a clear breach of tenets of
natural justice. It could be reasonably concluded that without
supply of copy of the documents which were relied on, the
petitioner did not have proper opportunity to raise his defence. The
petitioner ought to have been heard personally to be allowed to put
forward his case. The omission on the aforesaid scores resulted
into prejudice to the petitioner.
6. Only on the aforesaid consideration of the breach of natural
justice and the consequential denial of the proper opportunity to the
petitioner to defend his case, the impugned notice dated
NC: 2024:KHC:48221-DB
20.03.2024 deserves to be set aside and the case is required to be
remanded to the authority who has issued the notice by providing
the petitioner opportunity of hearing.
7. As a result, the notice dated 20.03.2024 is set aside, the
subject matter is remanded to the Senior Geologist, Department of
Mines and Geology, Mysuru-respondent No.1 herein to decide the
case afresh. Respondent No.1 - the Senior Geologist shall take the
decision after supplying all the documents to the petitioner which
are sought to be relied on by him in support of the stoppage notice
and further directing the authority to extend to the petitioner, the
opportunity of personal hearing by intimating the petitioner about
the date in that regard.
8. While the request of learned advocate for the petitioner for
permitting the petitioner to allow the quarry operations could not be
granted since the competent authority is yet to take appropriate
decision, it is provided that the entire exercise as above shall be
completed by respondent No.1 within two weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this present order without insisting for certified
copy which may be produced by the petitioner before respondent
No.1 subsequently.
NC: 2024:KHC:48221-DB
9. This Court has not gone into the merits of the case nor has
expressed any opinion on the merits of either side. Setting aside of
the notice dated 20.03.2024 is only on the ground of breach of
natural justice.
10. Respondent No.1 shall decide afresh in accordance with law
and on merits.
11. The present petition is partially allowed in the aforesaid
terms.
Sd/-
(N. V. ANJARIA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
DDU / CR
