S RAJENDRA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents. By consent, taken up for final hearing.

(2.) On 3rd March 2005, the quarrying lease was granted to the father of the petitioner for a period of five years. The challenge in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is of the notice dated 9th November 2017 demanding penalty of Rs.54,70,450/- on account of indulging in illegal stone mining.

(3.) The impugned notice records that a notice was issued on 13th October 2015 calling upon the petitioner to pay the penalty of Rs.39,47,005/-. The penalty was demanded of an amount which is equivalent to five times the royalty of the quantity of the stone illegally excavated. From the impugned notice, it appears that a reliance was placed on sub-Rule (3) of Rule 44 of the Karnataka Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1994 (for short 'the said Rules') .