[Minor Mineral Rules] State Has Revisional Jurisdiction Over Demand Notice Issued By Non-Designated Officer With Controlling Authority's Approval: Karnataka HC

A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Ashok S Kinagi said, "The petitioner has not committed any error in submitting the revision petition, being aggrieved by the issuance of demand notices by the Deputy Director on an approval by the Director, to the State Government for its consideration."

The observation was made in a case filed by A.N.Murthy, a lessee of the quarry issued by the Director, Department of Mining and Geology in 2014 for a period of 20 years.

The Deputy Director, Department of Mining and Geology issued various demand notices to the petitioner for payment of outstanding penalty amount and certain defects were observed in the inspection of the audit report. These demand notices conclude with the statement as follows: "This demand letter is approved by the Hon'ble Director".

Being aggrieved by the demand notices, the petitioner submitted Revision Petition under Rule 53(2) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1994, before the State Government.

However, the Under Secretary to the Government informed the petitioner that as per the provisions of Rule 53 (2) of the Rules, 1994, Revision is maintainable before the Government, only for the orders passed by the Authorities above the rank to that of Additional Director, Mines and Geology Department. Thus the Revision Petition filed before the Government is not maintainable.

Findings:

The bench referred to the rules and noted that by way of notification dated 18.11.2016, the State Government specified certain officers of the Department of Mines and Geology to be the Controlling Authority and reference is made to the Joint Directors North Zone/South Zone and the applicability of the Rules for those designated officers and area specified is their respective jurisdiction.

Then it said, "Admittedly, the demand notices issued by the Deputy Director are approved by the Director, who himself is the Controlling Authority."

Following which it observed, "In these facts situation, the petitioner was justified in submitting the Revision petition, being aggrieved by the demand notices which were approved by the Director i.e., Controlling Authority, to the State Government. The communication dated 28.07.2022 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government informing the petitioner that the Revision petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable before the State Government is clearly unsustainable."

Accordingly it held, "The communication dated 28.07.2022 is quashed and set aside and Revision Petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable. The respondent-State is directed to consider the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner under Rule 53(2) of the Rules, 1994. Needless to state that the same shall be decided on the merits of the Revision Petition, by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the Revision Petition be decided as early as possible and not later than three months (12 weeks)."

Case Title: A.N.MURTHY v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.22038 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 470

Date of Order: 14^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

Appearance: CHANDRANATH ARIGA K, ADVOCATE for petitioner; S.S.MAHENDRA, AGA for respondents.