MSPL LIMITED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State of Karnataka had put to an auction, lease in respect of land admeasuring 30.09 hectares of forest land situate in Ramanadurga Village, Sandur Taluk, Ballari District. The bid of petitioner No.1 (hereinafter referred to as 'MSPL Ltd.' For short) was accepted and a letter of intent dtd. 6/10/2018 was issued in its favour. In the Letter of Intent, it was provided that MSPL Ltd. is required to obtain permissions and clearances, including a forest clearance under Sec. 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, within a period of 30 months from the date of issuance of Letter of Intent. On completion of the aforesaid formalities, the State of Karnataka is required to execute a mining lease and a mine development and production agreement with MSPL Ltd.

(2.) The State of Karnataka has issued a show cause notice dtd. 13/6/2022, the MSPL Ltd. have filed this petition, in which a writ of certiorari has been sought for to quash the notice dtd. 13/6/2022, in addition, the petitioners have sought a writ of mandamus directing the State Government to extend the term of Letter of Intent until the issuance/transfer of forest clearance and to perform all actions required to transfer and vest the forest clearance in respect of mining lease.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the authority erred in posing itself a wrong question and therefore, has committed error of jurisdiction. It is further submitted that, the show cause notice has been issued to the MSPL Ltd., on the ground that the MSPL Ltd., has failed to obtain forest clearance which is not required. It is also submitted that, Sec. 8B in Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act has been substituted with effect from 28/3/2021. It is also submitted that in view of para 3.8 of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA v STATE OF KARNATAKA - (2017) 11 SCC 509, the impugned show cause notice is liable to be quashed. It is pointed out that even if relief of quashment of notice is not granted to the petitioners, they are entitled to other reliefs sought for in the petition. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in KISHORE KUMAR KHAITAN & ANR. v PRAVEEN KUMAR SINGH - (2006) 3 SCC 312.