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 demand notice dated 14.05.2026 [impugned order] issued under Rule 44A of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 [KMMC Rules] calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of `1,04,12,080/- as penalty. The said demand has been raised towards a one-time settlement [OTS] of the penalty for extracting 1,19,472 metric tonnes of building stone in excess of the quantity reported and for extracting a further quantity of 14,636 metric tonnes of building stone from the encroached area.
The petitioner states that he responded to the said notice by letter dated 07.08.2026. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned demand notice is vitiated as it has been issued without following the principles of natural justice.
The learned Government Advocate fairly submits that the impugned demand notice would be treated as a show cause notice, the petitioner's response to the same would be considered and the concerned authority would pass an appropriate order after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.
In view of the aforesaid statement, no orders are required to be passed in this petition, except that the respondents would be bound down to the statement, made on their behalf. We clarify that we have not examined the merits of the demand and nothing stated in this order should be construed as such.
We clarify that all rights and contentions of the parties are reserved including the petitioner's contention that the one time settlement [OTS] as contemplated under Rule 44-A of the KMMC Rules, is voluntary and at the option of the lease/licence holder.
The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.