AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vibhu Bakhru, CJ
The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 25.06.2021, termed as 'final notice' calling upon the petitioner to pay a penalty amount of Rs. 2,20,32,000/- as imposed in terms of the letter dated 03.04.2021.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the said demand has been raised without issuing any show cause notice or affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.
We note that a communication dated 27.04.2021 termed as 'show cause notice' was issued to the petitioner alleging that the petitioner had not obtained any permission from the office of the Senior Geologist for transporting murram (soil) from the areas as set out in the said notice. The said notice also indicates that the joint inspection of the areas from where murram is alleged to have been excavated was conducted by the technical officers of the office of the Senior Geologist jointly with the Revenue Inspector of Dudda Hobli as well as the Village Accountant.
The present petition has been filed after an excessive delay of over nearly five years.
The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents also points out that the petitioner has an alternate remedy of a revision under Rule 53 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994.
The said submission is countered by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that in similar circumstances, this Court had directed that the final order be treated as a show cause notice. He refers to the order dated 17.03.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.11275/2023 (GM-MM-S) captioned M/s. Dilip Builcon Limited vs. The State of Karnataka and others.
It is noted that the said case did not involve the question relating to the delay in approaching this Court. The said decision wad rendered in the facts of that case.
In any event, the said decision is not an authority for the proposition that this Court must entertain a writ petition even though an alternate remedy exists.
In view of the above, liberty is granted to the petitioner to avail of its alternate remedies. If the petitioner files a revision petition within a period of two weeks from date, the same would be considered uninfluenced by the delay. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents states that he has no objection to the said direction.
The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.