The court affirmed that the judicial review in writ jurisdiction is limited to the decision-making process and not the substantive outcome, emphasizing the necessity of evidentiary support for claims made by the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

1. Petitioner, a mining lease operator is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the Demand Notice dated 29.04.2022 issued by the 5th respondent -Senior Geologist at Annexure-A and the Revisional Order dated 15.12.2022 issued by the 4th respondent -Additional Director-cum-Revisional Authority at Annex-B. The net effect of what is impugned is to compel the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,18,63,056/- by way of royalty and penalty.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the impugned demand and the levy are incompetent; the answering respondents have ignored the payments made by the petitioner by way of royalty since January 2019; there is absolutely no material to assume that the petitioner has transported an additional quantity of sand i.e. 9788 Metric Tonnes unauthorisedly. The impugned orders are made contrary to the principles of natural justice. Even, the penalty is far in excess of what is permissible under the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994. According to him, these lapses do constitute errors apparent on the face of the record and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set at naught.

3. Learned Principal Government Advocate appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the writ petition making submission in justification of the impugned levy & demand; he contends that due opportunity was given to the petitioner and the impugned proceedings have been drawn with his participation. At no point of time, petitioner has made payment of royalty in respect of the quantity of mineral in question. The Authorities having considered all aspects of the matter have rightly levied the royalty and penalty, which would go to the State Exchequer. If there is any mistake in the quantification of the penalty or royalty amount, it is open to the petitioner to seek remedy under Rule 55 of the 1994 Rules. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, we decline indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the submission of learned Principal Government Advocate. Firstly, the Authorities after conducting due inspection and vigilance in discharge of their official duties have quantified excess mineral transported by the petitioner and i.e. 9788 Metric Tonnes. Despite vociferous arguments, petitioner is not in a position to demonstrate any error in the process of this quantification and we cannot undertake a deeper examination of the same in the judicial review under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. The vehement submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that his client has already made payments has not been vouched by placing requisite material on record, despite granting opportunity twice for this purpose. Certain copies of statutory forms now placed on record with a memo are not reflected in the original file at the hands of the learned Principal Government Advocate.

After all, payments of the kind are always made by bank cheques and the particulars thereof have not been furnished by the petitioner. The repeated assertion that a person has made the payment would not come to his aid in the absence of evidentiary records.

6. The last submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the levy of penalty is far in excess of what is permitted under the provisions of 1994 Rules does not merit deeper examination at our hands. Learned Principal Government Advocate is more than justified in drawing our attention to the provisions of Rule 55 which is structured in line with Section 152 of CPC, 1908; this provision provides remedy at the departmental level and the petitioner can have recourse to the same. In that connection, all contentions are kept open.

7. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that his client had no reasonable opportunity of participation in the proceedings is liable to be rejected inasmuch as several notices were sent to him