High CourtsDivision Bench(2026) 09 KAR CK 4512

Sri Motilal vs The State Of Karnataka & Ors.

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru Bench · Decided on 24 September 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vibhu Bakhrus, C.J · K.S. Hemalekha, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 28679 of 2026 (GM-MM-S)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 340 words

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1.

The learned Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents.

2.

The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning a notice dated 20.05.2026 issued under Rule 44A of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 [KMMC Rules], calling upon the petitioner to pay the total sum of `1,67,16,070/- as penalty for extracting excess quantity of 238801 metric tons.

3.

The petitioner is also called upon to visit the concerned office within a period of seven days along with appropriate documents regarding the penalty amount and for settlement of the matter. However, the petitioner has also been called upon to pay the stipulated penalty within a period of 6 months from the date of service of the notice. The notice also set out that the petitioner is also permitted to pay the penalty in four equal installments with one installment due every 45 days.

4.

One of the contentions advanced by the petitioner is that the said demand is vitiated as it has been issued without following the principles of natural justice and despite the petitioner responding by letter dated 27.05.2026 to the demand notice, the same has not been considered.

5.

The learned Government Advocate fairly states that the present petition be disposed of by directing that the impugned notice be considered as a show cause notice. He states that the petitioner's response would be considered and an order would be passed after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

6.

In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of, directing that the respondents are bound down to the statement made on their behalf. The impugned order shall be considered as a show cause notice and appropriate orders would be passed after following the principles of natural justice.

7.

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 44A of the KMMC Rules, is voluntary and at the option of the lease/licence holder.