PADMASHEKAR JAIN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Issue notice to the respondents. The learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner was granted a quarrying lease on 24th October, 2017 under the provisions of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1994 (for short 'the said Rules of 1994'). The lease was for a period of 10 years. A notice was issued by the second respondent to the petitioner on 14/18th February, 2020 stating that a spot inspection was conducted on the basis of a complaint and it was found that the quarrying activities were conducted in an area of 0.28 acres outside the leased area. Therefore, the petitioner was called upon to show-cause within 30 days as to why action should not be taken against him for carrying out quarrying activities outside the leased area. Further, the notice dated 22nd May, 2020 was issued which is the subject matter of challenge in this petition in which reliance was again placed on the spot inspection conducted on 30th January, 2020. The notice further records that stone mining lease area was surveyed through drone and GPS survey, which revealed that without obtaining a licence, the petitioner had conducted the quarrying operations within the leased land and had transported 35,171 Metric Tons of building stones. It is further alleged that drone survey revealed that the quarrying operations were carried out outside the leased area. Therefore, the petitioner was called upon to pay a sum of Rs.7,46,08,388/-. By the same notice, the petitioner was called upon to stop the quarrying operations.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that a copy of the drone survey report was not served to the petitioner and in fact, copies of none of the documents relied upon in the impugned notice were served to the petitioner as pointed out in the reply dated 3rd June 2020 filed by the petitioner which is at Annexure E. The learned Additional Government Advocate relied upon the judgment and order dated 4th February, 2020 passed in W.P. No. 18625/2019 and in particular, what is observed in paragraph Nos. 7,8 and 11 of the said judgment and order.