Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerns two writ petitions filed by M/s. Ganapathy Granite Impex Pvt Ltd. and Sri Janardhan Naik challenging an order dated 20.06.2018 passed by the State of Karnataka, Department of Commerce and Industries (MSME & Mines), which cancelled their quarrying leases. The petitioners held mining leases for granite and other minerals, not quarrying leases. The impugned order was based on a show cause notice that did not specify any violation or propose cancellation. The court found that the order was passed without application of mind, as it referred to non-existent quarrying leases, and violated principles of natural justice. The court quashed the order and directed the respondents to consider the petitioners' applications for renewal of mining leases afresh, after giving them a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Headnote
A) Mines and Minerals - Quarrying Lease vs Mining Lease - Cancellation of Lease - Section 4(1A) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Rule 8(1) of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 - The impugned order cancelled quarrying leases, but the petitioners held only mining leases, not quarrying leases. The court held that the order was passed without application of mind as it referred to non-existent quarrying leases. (Paras 1-10)
B) Natural Justice - Show Cause Notice - Cancellation of Lease - The show cause notice did not specify any violation or propose cancellation, and the impugned order was passed without giving a proper opportunity of hearing. The court held that the order violated principles of natural justice. (Paras 11-15)
C) Mines and Minerals - Application of Mind - Government Order - The impugned order was a verbatim reproduction of the show cause notice without any independent application of mind by the government. The court held that such an order cannot be sustained. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order dated 20.06.2018 cancelling the quarrying leases of the petitioners is valid when the petitioners did not hold any quarrying lease but only mining leases, and whether the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice.
Final Decision
The writ petitions are allowed. The impugned order dated 20.06.2018 is quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioners' applications for renewal of mining leases afresh, after giving them a reasonable opportunity of hearing, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- Quarrying lease
- Mining lease
- Section 4(1A) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act
- 1957
- Rule 8(1) of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules
- 1994
- Cancellation of lease
- Show cause notice
- Application of mind
Case Details
2021 LawText (KAR) (05) 14
Writ Petition No.30397 of 2018 (GM-MMS) and Writ Petition No.30399 of 2018 (GM-MMS)
Abhay S. Oka, Chief Justice, Suraj Govindaraj, Justice
Shri Aravind B. Reddy, Shri D.N. Nanjunda Reddy, Shri L.M. Chidanandayya, Smt. Kusuma R. Prasad, Shri Vikram Huilgol, Shri Bharath Kumar V
M/s. Ganapathy Granite Impex Pvt Ltd. and Sri Janardhan Naik
State of Karnataka, Director Department of Mines and Geology, Deputy Director Department of Mines and Geology, Deputy Commissioner, M/s. Fair Deal Stones Pvt. Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 20.06.2018 passed by the State of Karnataka cancelling quarrying leases.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the impugned order dated 20.06.2018 and direction to consider renewal of mining leases.
Filing Reason
The petitioners' mining leases were cancelled by the impugned order which referred to quarrying leases, and the order was passed without proper show cause notice or opportunity of hearing.
Issues
Whether the impugned order cancelling quarrying leases is valid when the petitioners held only mining leases?
Whether the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice?
Whether the impugned order suffers from lack of application of mind?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that they held mining leases, not quarrying leases, and the impugned order cancelling quarrying leases was without jurisdiction.
Petitioners argued that the show cause notice did not specify any violation or propose cancellation, and no opportunity of hearing was given.
Respondents argued that the order was passed in public interest and in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi
An order cancelling a lease must be based on proper application of mind and must refer to the correct type of lease held by the party. Principles of natural justice require that a show cause notice must specify the violation and propose the action, and a reasonable opportunity of hearing must be given before passing an adverse order.
Judgment Excerpts
The impugned order cancels quarrying leases, but the petitioners hold mining leases, not quarrying leases.
The show cause notice did not specify any violation or propose cancellation.
The impugned order is a verbatim reproduction of the show cause notice without any independent application of mind.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 20.06.2018 passed by the State of Karnataka. The petitions were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
Acts & Sections
- Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957: Section 4(1A)
- Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994: Rule 8(1)
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
