Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 19392 (KAR)

M/S S R STONE CRUSHER v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/8506/2025 · 2026-06-02

K S Hemalekha

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25842-DB WP No. 8506 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.8506 OF 2025 (GM-MM_S) BETWEEN: M/S. S.R. STONE CRUSHER OFFICE AT NO.441, 2ND CROSS, 3RD STAGE, 3RD BLOCK, BASAVESHWARNAGAR, BENGALURU-560079 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI SHIVRAJ, S/O LATE RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. …PETITIONER (BY SRI K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI AVINASH GOWDA G.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (MINES), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, VIKAS SOUDHA, 1ST FLOOR, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. Digitally signed by C K LATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25842-DB WP No. 8506 of 2025 3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, SOUTH DIVISION, MYSORE. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR/SENIOR GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, ZILLA ADALITA BHAWANA, 2ND FLOOR, ROOM 219, BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 110. …RESPONDENTS (BY MS. NILOUFER AKBAR, ADDL. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING AND SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.02.2025, PASSED BY THE REVISIONAL AUTHORITY IN REVISION PETITION NO.39/2024-25, PASSED BY RESPONDENT-3, AND PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 01.02.2025 [impugned order] passed by the Revisional Authority in Revision No. 39/2024-2025 passed by respondent No. 3 (Joint Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Mysore). The petitioner holds a quarry lease [QL705] for - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25842-DB WP No. 8506 of 2025 extracting building stone over an area covering 2 acres and 20 guntas in Sy. No.29 of Huluvinahalli Village, Bengaluru. The said lease was initially granted to one Smt. Savithramma for a period of 5 years on 24.07.2010. The said lease was thereafter transferred by her to the petitioner on 20.04.2015. 2. It is the petitioner's case that prior to the transfer of the lease, the original lessee, Smt. Savithramma had filed a complaint regarding unauthorised quarrying. The petitioner also contends that the complaint was investigated, and that one Sri Kenchappa was apprehended for allegedly extracting 100,000 metric tons of building stone without any authority to do so. He was also directed to pay an amount of `.15,00,000/- as royalty. 3. The petitioner's grievance stems from the notices issued by the authorities imposing penalty for over-extraction of building stones. The first notice is dated 18.12.2018, whereby it was alleged that the petitioner had extracted 2,88,465 metric tons of stone beyond the authorized limits. The said quantum had been determined on the basis of a drone survey report. Subsequently, by a demand notice dated 21.02.2019, the concerned authorities had - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25842-DB WP No. 8506 of 2025 imposed a penalty amounting to `.6,85,39,500/- which was 5 times the amount payable for unauthorised extraction. 4. The petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 13252/2019 challenging the notice dated 21.02.2019. The said petition was disposed of by an order dated 28.11.2019. The Court set aside the demand notice dated 21.02.2019, subject to the petitioner complying with the interim order dated 16.04.2019, whereby the petitioner was called upon to deposit 50% of the demand. The Court also clarified that, if the condition was not complied with, the demand notice would stand restored. Admittedly, the petitioner did not comply with the said condition. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a fresh application dated 20.04.2024 seeking permission to continue quarrying, which was withheld due to an ongoing dispute. 5. The petitioner preferred a Revision Petition on 18.06.2024 under Rule 53 (1) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, which was rejected by an order dated 01.02.2025. The said order is challenged in the present with petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25842-DB WP No. 8506 of 2025 6. A plain reading of the said impugned order indicates that the Revision Petition was rejected, as the petitioner had not complied with the final order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 13252/2019. 7. The petitioner states that after the said order was passed, the State Government issued blanket orders quashing all demands based on drone survey reports. The petitioner's case is that, since all demands have been quashed, no demand would survive against the petitioner as well. The petitioner argues that it could not be prejudiced for not depositing 50% of the said amount. The petitioner has also made a representation that the amount collected from Sri Kenchappa for illegal mining may be adjusted against the outstanding demand. 8. The learned counsel for the parties state that it is not necessary to examine this question as the State Government has floated a scheme for One Time Settlement [OTS] of all outstanding demands. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner seeks to avail of the OTS scheme and settle the outstanding demands. However, he expresses his apprehension - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25842-DB WP No. 8506 of 2025 that the Revisional Order may be construed as precluding the petitioner from availing the benefits of the said scheme. 9. In view of the above, we dispose of the present petition by clarifying that the Revisional Order, which is impugned in the present petition, will not stand in the way of the petitioner availing the One Time Settlement Scheme. The interlocutory pending application is also disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE CKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25