Karnataka High Court
WP/21178/2026 of SRI SYED JAFFER Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 8 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010468292026 NC: 2026:KHC:48519-DB WP No. 21178 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH 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.21178 OF 2026 (GM-MM_S)
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH 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.21178 OF 2026 (GM-MM_S)
BETWEEN:
SRI SYED JAFFER
S/O. LATE SYED RQQEEB BABU,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT NO.565/8, KODALLI ROAD,
OLD SANTHEMELA,
GUNDLUPETE TOWN AND TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571111.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. H.V. BHANU PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPT. OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2.
THE DIRECTOR,
DEP. OF MINES AND GEOLOGIST,
NO.49, RACE COURSE ROAD,
KHANJIA BHAVANA,
BENGALURU-560001.
3.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR/
SENIOR GEOLOGIST,
Digitally signed by
MAHALAKSHMI B M
Location: High Court
of Karnataka
HC-KAR
DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY,
CHAMRAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571 313.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO WRIT OF
CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT
NO.3
DATED
07.05.2026
IN
NO.GABHUE/HIBHUV/CHR/OTS-NOTICE/2026-27/275
DEMANDING
OF RS.29,75,770/- AS FINE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF
RULE 44-A OF THE KARNATAKA MINOR MINERALS CONCESSION
(AMENDMENT) RULES, 2026 AS ONE TIME SETTLEMENT (OTS)
WITH PENAL PROVISIONS IN CASE OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITHIN
180 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF SAID DEMAND NOTICE
TO THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-F 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 demand notice dated 07.05.2026 [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
HC-KAR
`29,75,770/- as penalty. The said demand has been raised towards a one-time settlement [OTS] of the penalty for extracting 22,815 metric tonnes of building stone in excess of the quantity reported and for extracting a further quantity of 9,848 metric tonnes of building stone from the encroached area.
3. The petitioner states that he responded to the said notice by letter dated 15.06.2026. However, he has not received any further communication in this regard. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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
HC-KAR
we have not examined the merits of the demand and nothing stated in this order should be construed as such.
6. 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.
7. 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.: 1