AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
The learned Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents.
The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning the notice dated 21.07.2026, whereby, it is alleged that the petitioner has excavated 82,940 metric tonnes of soil in excess of the quantity permitted and has, accordingly, been called upon to pay the penalty as prescribed in Schedule I-C of the Karnataka Sub-Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 [KMMC Rules]. The petitioner has further been put to notice that, in the event of failure to pay the penalty, action would be initiated in accordance with the rules.
The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to address the allegations made in the impugned notice. He states that the petitioner is willing to pay the amount determined, if it is ultimately found that the petitioner has excavated soil in excess of the permitted quantity. He, however, submits that the allegation that the petitioner has excavated 82,940 metric tonnes of soil in excess of the permitted quantity is factually erroneous.
The learned Government Advocate submits that the notice dated 21.07.2026 is in the nature of a show cause notice and that the amount of penalty has not yet been quantified. He submits that the petitioner may be permitted to file a response to the said show cause notice, which would be considered by the competent authority.
We note that the petitioner has also submitted representations prior to the issuance of the impugned notice. However, notwithstanding the same, we consider it apposite to direct that the impugned notice dated 21.07.2026 be treated as a show-cause notice. Accordingly, the petitioner is at liberty to submit his response to the impugned notice and place all relevant materials before the concerned authority.
It is clarified that the petitioner shall not be precluded from contesting any of the allegations made in the impugned notice, including the allegation that the petitioner has excavated soil in excess of the permitted quantity.
If such response is submitted within a period of two weeks from date, the concerned authority shall consider the same and pass an appropriate reasoned order, in accordance with law, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.
We also clarify that, if the concerned authority considers it apposite, it is not precluded from conducting a fresh inspection. The impugned notice shall not stand in the way of such inspection.
The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.