MANJUNATH YELLAPPA TIMMAPUR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, a mining lease operator is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the Demand Notice dtd. 29/4/2022 issued by the 5th respondent - Senior Geologist at Annexure-A and the Revisional Order dtd. 15/12/2022 issued by the 4th respondent - Additional Director-cum-Revisional Authority at Annex-B. The net effect of what is impugned is to compel the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,18,63,056.00 by way of royalty and penalty.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the impugned demand and the levy are incompetent; the answering respondents have ignored the payments made by the petitioner by way of royalty since January 2019; there is absolutely no material to assume that the petitioner has transported an additional quantity of sand i.e. 9788 Metric Tonnes unauthorisedly. The impugned orders are made contrary to the principles of natural justice. Even, the penalty is far in excess of what is permissible under the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994. According to him, these lapses do constitute errors apparent on the face of the record and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set at naught.

(3.) Learned Principal Government Advocate appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the writ petition making submission in justification of the impugned levy & demand; he contends that due opportunity was given to the petitioner and the impugned proceedings have been drawn with his participation. At no point of time, petitioner has made payment of royalty in respect of the quantity of mineral in question. The Authorities having considered all aspects of the matter have rightly levied the royalty and penalty, which would go to the State Exchequer. If there is any mistake in the quantification of the penalty or royalty amount, it is open to the petitioner to seek remedy under Rule 55 of the 1994 Rules. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.