Karnataka High Court
WP/23202/2026 of MR. N. SOMASHEKAR Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 7 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010518882026 NC: 2026:KHC:48273-DB WP No. 23202 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH 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. 23202 OF 2026 (GM-MMS)
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH 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. 23202 OF 2026 (GM-MMS)
BETWEEN:
MR. N. SOMASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
S/O. MR. P. NARAYANA GOWDA,
R/O. SY. NO.42, NAGANALA VILLAGE,
MEDIHALA POST,
KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-563 102,
KARNATAKA.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MAHENDRA S.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
(MSME AND MINES),
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES,
VIKASA SOUDHA, 1ST FLOOR,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2.
THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY,
KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
3.
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
Digitally signed by
MAHALAKSHMI B M
Location: High Court
of Karnataka
HC-KAR
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY,
ROOM NO.83 AND 83A,
2ND FLOOR, ZILLA ADALITH BHAVAN,
NH-75 (04), KUMBARAHALLI,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 103.
4.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KOLAR DISTRICT,
KOLAR-563 101.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT
OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.07.2026
BEARING
NO.GABUE/UNIKO/KAGAGU-
1044/AVADHIPOORVARADDU/2026-27/1332-39
PASSED
BY
RESPONDENT NO.3, PRODUCED AS 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 petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the order dated 03.07.2026 passed by respondent No.3, whereby the building stone quarrying lease bearing No.1044, granted in favour of the petitioner in respect of an extent of 10
HC-KAR
acres 31 guntas in Sy.No.42 of Naganal Village, Sugutur Hobli, Kolar Taluk, has been prematurely terminated for alleged violations of Rules 6(3), 44A, 44, 45 and 31-W of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994.
2. The petitioner submits that several representations have been submitted contending that the petitioner has complied with all the statutory provisions and has also taken all necessary measures to ensure that the quarrying unit does not cause any pollution. The principal contention advanced by the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.
3. The learned Additional Government Advocate, on instructions, fairly submits that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner prior to the passing of the impugned order. He, however, submits that a suspension order had been passed prior to the impugned order.
4. The mere fact that a suspension order had been passed earlier would not dispense with the requirement of complying with the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement of
HC-KAR
affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard before taking an adverse decision.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already submitted comprehensive representations in respect of the allegations on which the action is premised.
6. In view of the above, we direct that the impugned order be considered as a show cause notice. Respondent No.3 shall consider the petitioner's representations and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing within a period of twelve weeks from date.
7. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE AT List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8