Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 28478 (KAR)

M/S S-CUBE ROBO SAND v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/20401/2026 · 2026-07-13

K S Hemalekha

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35272-DB WP No. 20401 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 20401 OF 2026 (GM-MM-S) BETWEEN: 1. M/S S-CUBE ROBO SAND A REGISTERED FIRM OF PARTNERS UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 WITH ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SY NO. 47/4 FIRST FLOOR, KENCHANKUPPE GATE BIDADI POST, BM ROAD RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 562 109 REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR. SHARATH K AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS …PETITIONER (BY SRI RAVEENDRA GAJANAN KOLLE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY BENGALURU - 560 001 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT (MSME AND MINES), ROOM NO. 135 1ST FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001 Digitally signed by SRIDEVI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35272-DB WP No. 20401 of 2026 3. THE DIRECTOR AND COMMISSIONER DEPT. OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJ BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU, BENGALURU - 560 001 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY APPAJI LAYOUT, NEAR VADERHALLI RAILWAY GATE RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 562 159 5. KARNATAKA STATE REMOTE SENSING APPLICATIONS CENTRE (KSRSAC) DOORA SAMVEDI BHAVANA MAJOR SANDEEP UNNIKRISHNAN ROAD DODDABETTAHALLI VIDYARANYAPURA BENGALURU - 560 097 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR …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 DECLARE THAT THE PROVISO (a) TO RULE 40 OF KMMC RULES, AS PER NOTIFICATION NO.CI-MMN/205/2022 W.E.F 17.03.2023 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-K EMPOWERS RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO CONDUCT DGPS OR DRONE OR TOTAL STATION SURVEY 'PROSPECTIVELY' AND 'NOT RETROSPECTIVELY' FOR FREEZING THE REFERENCE OR REDUCED LEVELS FOR SYSTEMATIC AND SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT OF MINERAL EXTRACTION AND - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35272-DB WP No. 20401 of 2026 DISPATCH AND FURTHER DECLARE THAT THE RESPONDENTS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO RECONSTRUCT DETERMINE OR QUANTIFY THE ALLEGED EXCESS EXTRACTION OR ENCROACHMENT OUTSIDE THE QUARRY LEASE AREA PRIOR TO 17.03.2023 BASED ON SUCH DGPS OR DRONE OR TOTAL STATION SURVEY 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 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the notice dated 18.05.2026 issued under Section 44A of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 [KMMC Rules]. 2. The petitioner contends that the impugned demand notice is premised on a unilateral DGPS and drone surveys conducted in 2023 to "reconstruct" and quantify mining activities dating back to 2006-2007 a period for which no scientific base line data existed. It - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35272-DB WP No. 20401 of 2026 is further submitted that proviso (a) to Rule 40 of the KMMC Rules, which was notified on 17.03.2023, expressly mandates that such surveys be conducted to freeze reference levels of concession areas "prospectively" and "not retrospectively" to facilitate future assessments. He submits that the impugned demand notice is premised on the reference points which did not exist at the material time. The petitioner also seeks a declaration that the proviso (a) to Rule 40 of the KMMC Rules does not apply retrospectively. 3. The aforesaid prayers are sought in the context of the challenge to the notice dated 18.05.2026. 4. The learned Government Advocate fairly states that the demand notice dated 18.05.2026 be considered as a show cause notice. The petitioner has already submitted his response to the said notice. The concerned authorities shall consider the same and pass an appropriate informed order after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. 5. In view of the above, we do not consider it apposite to examine the petitioner's grievance regarding implementation of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35272-DB WP No. 20401 of 2026 proviso (a) to Rule 40 of the KMMC Rules, retrospectively. All rights and contentions of the parties are reserved. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE SD List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12