AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vibhu Bakhru, CJ
The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 26.06.2024 passed by respondent No.1, whereby the petitioner's application for grant of quarrying lease in respect of land measuring 8 acres [comprised in Survey No.43, Darburu Village, Chikkaballapura Taluk and District] was rejected.
The impugned order indicates that the petitioner's application was rejected on account of various allegations, including that the petitioner had violated export conditions and also relaxation given to Export Oriented Units under Rule 3-G of the Karnataka Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1994. In view of the alleged past violations, the concerned authority had observed the old adage, "Once Bitten Twice Shy", and rejected the petitioner's application.
The notices issued to the petitioner for a hearing did not even remotely suggest consideration of any prior violations. They even did not set out any ground on which the petitioner's application was proposed to be rejected.
In the aforesaid context, we find merit in the contention that the petitioner has not been afforded any effective hearing by respondent No.1 to meet the allegations on the basis of which the impugned order has been passed.
In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to respondent No.1 to consider afresh, after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.
The petitioner is at liberty to file its response to the allegations set out in the impugned order within a period of three weeks from date.
Respondent No.1 shall consider the same and pass an appropriate order, after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.
The writ petition is disposed of, accordingly.