SRI G.BASAVARAJU Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal at this stage itself.

(2.) The petitioner, said to be the mining leaseholder of ML No.2324 in respect of the land situated at Hosahalli village, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumkur District, has preferred these writ petitions on being aggrieved of the notice-cum- orders dated 01.06.2016 and 01.12.2016 (Annexures-A and A1), as issued by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively, wherein a demand is made for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards penalty on the allegation of the petitioner conducting illegal mining activities outside the leased area. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents though had attempted to justify the action of the respondents, but could not dispute the fundamental fact that before calling upon the petitioner to remit the amount by way of the impugned notice-cum-orders dated 01.06.2016 and 01.12.2016, the petitioner was not served with a prior notice of the demand sought to be made.

(3.) In the indisputable fact situation that the impugned notices have been issued without extending an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, we are of the view that the recovery under the said notices cannot be sustained.