Karnataka High Court
WP/28616/2026 of M/S SENSATION MAHESHWARA INFRA PROJECTS LLP Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 25 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010628602026 NC: 2026:KHC:53141-DB WP No. 28616 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.28616 OF 2026 (GM-MM_S)
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO.28616 OF 2026 (GM-MM_S)
BETWEEN:
M/S SENSATION MAHESHWARA
INFRA PROJECTS LLP
(LLP IN: AAQ-7766),
#8/2/616/1, 4TH FLOOR,
SHOP 3B, SAHA BUILDING,
NEAR HOTEL MINERVA GRAND,
BANJARA HILLS, ROAD NO.11
HYDERABAD, TELANGANA.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SMT. DEEPIKA JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR
MR. SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES
(MINES AND GEOLOGY),
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560001.
2.
THE DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU
Digitally signed by
MAHALAKSHMI B M
Location: High Court
of Karnataka
HC-KAR
3.
THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST,
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION QUASHING THE NOTICE DATED 21.07.2026 BEARING
NO.GABHUE/HIBHUBENGRAAJI/NOTICE/2026-27/1239 ISSUED BY
RESPONDENT NO.3, VIDE ANNEXURE A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
(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 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
HC-KAR
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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
HC-KAR
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
HC-KAR
9. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE
MBM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4