PNC INFRATECH LIMITED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner who holds a quarry lease is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the penalty demand notice dtd. 26/4/2022 issued by the 4th respondent -Deputy Director of Mines & Geology Department, a copy whereof is at Annexure-N whereby he has been directed to remit a sum of Rs.23,47,13,703.00 within thirty days. This levy is made for the alleged loss to the exchequer inter alia for rendering the subject quarry lease dysfunctional. There is allegation of violation of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 inasmuch as the transportation of the mineral has happened sans transit permits. The breakup of the levy items has been furnished in the Audit Report for the financial year in question.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks to falter the impugned levy of penalty pointing out petitioner's reply submitted against the levy and demand notice dtd. 26/4/2022 wherein he had raised an objection as to the absence of Drone Survey in the fitness of things. He also points out the Work Order dtd. 24/11/2022, a copy whereof is at Annexure-R whereby the 3rd respondent -Director of Mines and Geology Department had instructed for undertaking the Drone Survey of the area in question. The counsel submits that till this exercise is undertaken and the impact of its outcome on the alleged liability of the petitioner is adjudged, the impugned demand notice cannot be sustained. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent - authorities vehemently opposes the petition making submission in justification of the impugned demand notice and the factors on which it has been constructed.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, we are inclined to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as pursuant to objection of the petitioner to the demand raised, the Director of Mines & Geology, vide Work Order dtd. 24/11/2022, had instructed the officials to undertake a Drone Survey of the area concerned. No material is produced by the Authorities to demonstrate that such an exercise was undertaken and its outcome has not altered the determination of levy of penalty and the consequent demand notice. Thus, there is an error apparent on the face of record warranting our interference.