H. AVINASH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the rejection of the application dtd. 21/10/2020 seeking grant of quarrying lease, the petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 30/12/2022 passed by respondent No.3-The Deputy Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Tumakuru.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the order impugned in the petition is unsustainable. He submits that by way of a sale deed between himself and erstwhile the lease holder, purchased the subject land wherein, the seller assured the petitioner that the subject land is free from any encumbrances, however, the previous owner was conducting quarrying operation. Subsequently, on 21/10/2020, the petitioner submitted an application for grant of quarrying lease whereas, the said application was rejected. Apart, from rejection of the application, respondent No.3 issued a show cause notice alleging that there is an illegal quarrying operation and imposed a penalty of Rs.24,68,76,000.00. He further submits that Rules 36 and 42 of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short 'the said Rules of 1994') and Sec. 21(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 prohibits the Authority to impose penalty. It is also contended that the petitioner has not conducted any quarrying operation much less the illegal quarrying operation to claim royalty and penalty from the petitioner.

(3.) A perusal of the statement of objections filed on behalf of the State Government, reveals that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has not availed the statutory, alternative and efficacious remedy provided under Rule 53 of the said Rules of 1994. It is further stated that this Rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion and the same has been crystallized by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Goa and others vs. A.H.Jaffar and sons reported in AIR 1995 SCC 333, Whirpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1, Harbanslal Sahni vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited reported in (2003) 2 SCC 107 and Radha Krishan Industries vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others reported in 2021 SCC Online SCC 334. It is further stated that in the order dtd. 31/12/2022 passed by respondent No.3-Deputy Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Tumkur District, a reference is made to the letter dtd. 12/10/2022 issued by respondent No.2-Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Bengaluru. It is also stated that a revision would lie before the Secretary-II, Department of Commerce and Industries, Bengaluru as per Gazette Notification vide No.CI 418 MRC 92(P) dtd. 27/3/1995.