- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17925-DB WP No. 4508 of 2025 C/W WP No. 4678 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 4508 OF 2025 (GM-MM_S) C/W WRIT PETITION No. 4678 OF 2025 (GM-MM_S) BETWEEN: 1. SRI ARAVIND, S/O. SHIVASHARANAPPAGOUDA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS, R/O YELBURGA TALUK, YELBURGA-583 236, KOPPAL DISTRICT. …COMMON PETITIONER (BY SRI PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI SHIVALLI SHIVAYOGI YALLAPPAGOUDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, M.S. BUILDINGS, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. Digitally signed by PRABHAKAR SWETHA KRISHNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17925-DB WP No. 4508 of 2025 C/W WP No. 4678 of 2025 3. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, KOPPAL-583231, TQ AND DIST KOPPAL. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICES, K.S.P.C.B. KOPPAL, DIST. KOPPAL-583231. …COMMON RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R.1 TO R.3 SRI A MAHESH CHOWDHARY, ADVOCATE FOR R.5) WRIT PETITION No.4508/2025 FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 01.02.2025 MADE IN No.GABHUEE/HIBHUVI/ KAGAGU-373, 349, 294 AND 356/2024-25/8335 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT No.3 IN SO FAR AS QUARRYING LICENSE No. KPLNS 349 IN RESPECT OF Sy. No.14/1 AND 14/4 MEASURING 4 ACRES 32 GUNTAS SITUATED AT VAJRABANDI VILLAGE, YELBURGA TALUK, KOPPAL DISTRICT IS CONCERNED AS BEING ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS AND CONTRARY TO LAW EQUITY AND JUSTICE (ANNEXURE-F) AND ETC. WRIT PETITION No.4678/2025 FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 01.02.2025 MADE IN No.GABHUEE/HIBHUVI/ KAGAGU-373, 349, 294 AND 356/2024-25/8335 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT No.3 IN SO FAR AS QUARRYING LICENSE No. KPLNS 349 IN RESPECT OF GOVERNMENT LAND BEARING Sy. No.44 MEASURING 5 ACRES SITUATED AT VAJRABANDI VILLAGE, YELBURGA TALUK, KOPPAL DISTRICT IS CONCERNED AS BEING ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS AND CONTRARY TO LAW EQUITY AND JUSTICE (ANNEXURE-F) AND ETC. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17925-DB WP No. 4508 of 2025 C/W WP No. 4678 of 2025 THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND) Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Prabhuling K. Navadgi along with learned advocate Mr. Shivalli Shivayogi Yallappagouda for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned advocate Mr. A. Mahesh Chowdhary for respondent No.5. 2. These writ petitions are filed seeking to quash the order dated 01.02.2025, annexed as Annexure-F, passed by respondent No.3. 3. In Writ Petition No.4508 of 2025, the petitioner is the absolute owner of the lands bearing Survey No.14/1 measuring 2 acres 37 guntas and Survey No.14/2 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17925-DB WP No. 4508 of 2025 C/W WP No. 4678 of 2025 measuring 2 acres 37 guntas, situated at Vajrabandi Village, Yelburga Taluk, Koppal District. In Writ Petition No.4678 of 2025, the petitioner is the absolute owner of the lands bearing Sy.No.44 measuring 5 acres out of 68 acres 11 guntas situated at Vajrabandi Village, Yelburga Taluk, Koppal District. It is the case of the petitioner that he submitted applications for grant of a quarrying licence in respect of the aforesaid lands, the same were duly considered and licence was granted upon obtaining clearance from the competent authorities. Pursuant to the grant of the licence, the petitioner is carrying on quarrying operations in compliance with the requirements prescribed under the applicable laws. 4. It is submitted that, pursuant to a complaint lodged by one Sri Fakkirappa Waddar, respondent No.3 conducted a spot inspection without issuing any prior notice to the petitioner and in his absence, though in the presence of the complainant. It is alleged that respondent No.3, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17925-DB WP No. 4508 of 2025 C/W WP No. 4678 of 2025 petitioner, submitted a report behind the petitioner’s back, pointing out certain deficiencies and recommending suspension of the quarrying licence. Thereafter, without proper application of mind and solely on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint and the recommendations of the technical officers, respondent No.3 passed the impugned order dated 01.02.2025, suspending the quarrying licence. 5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Prabhuling K. Navadgi, appearing on behalf of the learned Advocate Mr. Shivalli Shivayogi Yallappagouda for the petitioner, submits that the complaint alleging certain violations is baseless and frivolous. It is submitted that respondent No.3 conducted a spot inspection in the presence of the complainant without issuing prior notice or intimation to the petitioner, and subsequently submitted a report pointing out certain deficiencies. 5.1 It is further submitted that the recommendations made for suspension of the quarrying licence, as well as - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17925-DB WP No. 4508 of 2025 C/W WP No. 4678 of 2025 the order suspending the licence of the petitioner, are arbitrary and in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned Senior Advocate submits that, prior to suspending a quarrying licence, it is incumbent upon the competent authority to issue a notice specifying the alleged discrepancies and to call upon the licence holder to remedy the same within a stipulated period. Only upon failure to comply with such direction, further consequential action can be taken. In the present case, it is contended that no such notice was issued, nor was any opportunity afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate Smt.Niloufer Akbar submits that a complaint was received from the villagers alleging a series of violations, pursuant to which an inspection was conducted by the competent authority. During the said inspection, various violations and discrepancies were observed. It is submitted that, based on the recommendations of the technical officers, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17925-DB WP No. 4508 of 2025 C/W WP No. 4678 of 2025 an order suspending the quarrying licence was passed. Learned Advocate further submits that the suspension of the licence is only during the pendency of the workability report from the competent authorities. Accordingly, it is contended that the impugned order is justified and does not call for interference. 7. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the parties, it is noted that under the impugned order, the mining licence of the petitioner has been suspended pending receipt of the workability report. It is not in dispute that the mining licence was granted to the petitioner after due compliance with the statutory requirements and upon inspections carried out in accordance with law. The petitioner has been carrying on quarrying activities in respect of the land in question pursuant to the said licence. 8. The respondent-authorities, acting upon a complaint pertaining to issues such as water pollution, sound pollution, and other environmental concerns, conducted a - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17925-DB WP No. 4508 of 2025 C/W WP No. 4678 of 2025 spot inspection and are stated to have noticed certain irregularities. Based on the said inspection report, a recommendation was made to suspend the mining licence pending receipt of the workability report. It is, however, evident that no notice was issued to the petitioner, nor was his presence secured during the course of the inspection. Furthermore, neither the report of the technical officer nor the recommendations made thereon have been furnished to the petitioner. 9. Apart from the foregoing, it is to be noted that the petitioner has a right to carry on mining activities pursuant to the licence granted in his favour. Any action which interferes with such right necessarily requires issuance of notice to the licensee, informing him of the proposed action. Before taking any decision, particularly one involving suspension of the mining licence, it is imperative that an opportunity of hearing is afforded to the licensee. 10. A perusal of the record reveals that no notice was issued to the petitioner, nor was any opportunity granted - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:17925-DB WP No. 4508 of 2025 C/W WP No. 4678 of 2025 to file a reply prior to the issuance of the impugned order. The petitioner holds a statutory right to carry on mining activities by virtue of the licence granted to him, and any interference with such right must be preceded by due notice and an opportunity of hearing. On this ground alone, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. 11. However, the nature of the allegations made in the complaint is of reasonable importance and warrants action by the respondent-authorities. The entire action cannot be set aside solely on the ground of violation of natural justice. Balancing of the interest of both parties is necessary in the present case. Nonetheless, any such action shall be subject to the outcome of the consideration of the reply of the petitioner and the opportunity afforded to the petitioner to present his case. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:17925-DB WP No. 4508 of 2025 C/W WP No. 4678 of 2025 12. In the circumstances, as observed above, the following, Order (i) Writ petitions are allowed in-part. (ii) The impugned order dated 01.02.2025 bearing No.GaBhuEE/HiBhuVi/KaGaGu-373, 349, 294 and 356/2024-25/8335 passed by respondent No.3 is set aside. (iii) The order dated 01.02.2025 shall be treated as a show-cause notice. The report of the technical officer, along with any other documents that may be used against the petitioner, shall be made available to the petitioner. (iv) The petitioner is granted liberty to file reply to the show-cause notice within two weeks. (v) The respondent-authorities shall be at liberty to take appropriate action and arrive at a final decision, only after granting an opportunity to both the petitioner and the complainant/s. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:17925-DB WP No. 4508 of 2025 C/W WP No. 4678 of 2025 (vi) This Court has not expressed any opinion on merits. (vii) The above directed exercise shall be completed within four months from the date of this order Sd/- (N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12