Karnataka High Court
WP/25913/2026 of SRI K M BOPANNA Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 27 August 2026
CNR: KAHC010573172026 NC: 2026:KHC:46121-DB WP No. 25913 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 25913 OF 2026 (GM-MM-S)
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 25913 OF 2026 (GM-MM-S)
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI K.M. BOPANNA
S/O. LATE K.C. MEDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
R/AT KALATHMADU VILLAGE
AMMATHI HOBLI, VIRAJPET TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 211
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI AKASH B. SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPT. OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001
2.
THE DIRECTOR,
DEPT. OF MINES AND GEOLOGIST
NO.49, RACE COURSE ROAD
KHANJIA BHAVANA
BENGALURU - 560 001
Digitally
signed by
SRIDEVI S
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
HC-KAR
3.
THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST,
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
KODAGU DISTRICT
MADIKERI - 571 201
…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, QUASHING THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED
04/07/2026
IN
NO.GaBhuE/HiBhuV(ko)/OTS-Notice/2026-27/621, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT - SENIOR GEOLOGIST, DEMANDING
RS.39,14,680/-
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 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT
OF SAID NOTICE, VIDE ANNEXURE-A & 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.
HC-KAR
2. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning a notice dated 04.07.2026 issued under Rule 44A of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 [KMMC Rules], calling upon the petitioner to pay the total sum of `39,14,680/- as penalty for extracting excess and encroachment quantity totaling to 39168 metric tons of mineral. The said demand is premised on the allegation that the petitioner has extracted and transported building stone in a licensed quarry area without payment of the requisite royalty.
3. The petitioner has 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 sets 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.
5. The learned Government Advocate fairly states that the present petition be disposed of by directing that the impugned
HC-KAR
notice be considered as a show cause notice. The petitioner may file a response to the same within a period of two weeks from date and the concerned authority shall pass a final order after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.
6. 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.
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 44-A of the KMMC Rules, is voluntary and at the option of the lease/licence holder.
8. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE SD, List No.: 2 Sl No.: 14