[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
M/S Maruthi Granites vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:20277-DB
WP No. 9556 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 9556 OF 2026 (GM-MM-S)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S MARUTHI GRANITES
A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
"SRI RANGANATHA SWAMY NILAYA"
6TH CROSS, VIDYANAGAR
TUMKUR - 572 102
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
SRI K. SHIVARAM
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRAKASH B.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
VEERENDRA
KUMAR K M REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
Location: High COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES
Court of DEPARTMENT (MSME & MINES)
Karnataka VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001
2. THE DIRECTOR/COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY
KHANIJA BHAVANA
R.C.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:20277-DB
WP No. 9556 of 2026
HC-KAR
KHANIJA BHAVAN
SPOORTHI LAYOUT
BUDDIHALLI, RING ROAD
TUMKUR - 572 104
4. THE REVISION AUTHORITY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
AND INDUSTRIES (MSME AND MINES)
BENGALURU - 560 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
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 NOTICE/ORDER DATED 14.11.2025 ISSUED
BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND
GEOLOGY, TUMKUR BEARING No.GaBuee/Vooneethu/Kaagagu.Aa.
Shi-985/2025-26/5469 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO CALLING UPON
THE PETITIONER TO STOP ANY SORT OF QUARRYING WORK IN
THE LEASED AREA. THE ORIGINAL OF THE NOTICE/ORDER
DATED 14.11.2025 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR HAS BEEN
PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A & ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:20277-DB
WP No. 9556 of 2026
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia,
impugning a notice dated 14.11.2025 directing the petitioner to stop
the quarrying work in the leased area. The petitioner also impugns
an endorsement dated 10.12.2025, whereby the petitioner's User
ID for using the ILMS portal of the Department of Mines and
Geology has been blocked. The petitioner essentially seeks
direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to carry on the
quarrying operations.
2. The averments made in the present petition indicates that a
quarrying lease in respect of land measuring 6 acres 20 guntas
falling in Survey No.78 of Varadanahalli village, Gulur Hobli,
Tumkur Taluk, Tumkur District is valid and in subsistence.
However, the action prohibiting the petitioner from carrying on
further quarrying activities is premised on the basis that the
petitioner has not complied with the demand notices issued by the
authorities.
NC: 2026:KHC:20277-DB
HC-KAR
3. The petitioner states that a demand notice dated 31.07.2023
has been issued under Rule 40 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral
Concession Rules, 1994 [KMMC Rules], calling upon the petitioner
to pay an amount of `1,57,78,554/- which was allegedly due in
respect of the said quarry lease. Subsequently another demand
notice dated 03.10.2024 has been issued calling upon the
petitioner to pay an amount of `2,04,40,503/- alleging illegal
extraction/transport/short payment of royalty.
4. The petitioner has filed a revision petition challenging the
said demands which are outstanding. The petitioner contends that
closure of the mining activities would amount to coercive recovery
of the demand, which is the subject matter of challenge. He also
submits that an oral application was made to the Revisional
Authority to pass an interim order staying the demands, however,
the request has been orally rejected.
5. The learned Government Advocate submits that there is no
such application on record for interim stay before the revisional
authority. He submits that if there any such application is made, the
same would be considered.
NC: 2026:KHC:20277-DB
HC-KAR
6. We note that the demand on the basis of which the
impugned notices for stopping the quarry activities has been
issued, is not a subject matter of challenge in this petition. In view
of the above, we consider it apposite to dispose of the present
petition with liberty to the petitioner to make an appropriate
application for interim relief before the revisional authority. The
revisional authority may consider the same, or in the alternative,
take up the revision petition for hearing expeditiously and dispose
of the same, preferably within a period of six weeks from date.
7. Writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
KMV
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11
