SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 28310

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Vibhu Bakhru, CJ, K.S. Hemalekha, J
Mahesh Rai B.V. – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
WP No. 16834 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Prasanna V R.
For the Respondents: K.S. Harish

A demand notice issued under statutory rules must be treated as a show-cause notice if natural justice, specifically the right to a hearing, has not been afforded, requiring authorities to provide an opportunity for response before issuing a final determination.

Headnote:The petitioner challenged a demand notice issued by the respondent authorities seeking penalty payments under the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2026. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued in violation of natural justice principles, as no prior opportunity for hearing or contestation was provided. The Government Advocate submitted that the impugned notice should be treated as a show-cause notice. The core issue is whether a demand notice issued without prior hearing violates the principles of natural justice. The court held that to satisfy the requirement of fairness, the notice must be treated as a show-cause notice, thereby allowing the petitioner to respond and ensuring an opportunity for a hearing before a final order is passed. The petition is disposed of by treating the impugned demand notice as a show-cause notice, granting the petitioner time to respond, and directing the authorities to pass a reasoned order after a hearing.

Table of Content
1. challenge to demand notice due to lack of prior hearing. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. conversion of demand notice into show-cause notice to ensure procedural fairness. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 14.05.2026 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT SENIOR GEOLOGIST VIDE ANNEXURE-A DEMANDING RS.10,25,56,068/- AS FINE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 44-A OF THE KARNATAKA MINOR MINERALS CONCESSION (AMENDMENT) RULES, 2026 AS ONE TIME SETTLEMENT (OTS) WITH PENAL PROVISIONS IN CASE OF NON-COMPLIANCE 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 learned Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the demand notice dated 14.05.2026 issued by respondent No.3 demanding an amount of `10,25,56,068/- as penalty in terms of the provisions of Rule 44A of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 as introduced by virtue of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2026 [Rules].

3. The petitioner contends that the impugned notice called upon the petitioner to appear before the concerned officer along with all documents within a period of seven days and also called upon the petitioner to discharge the payment.

4. The petitioner argues that the said demand notice is invalid as it has been issued without affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard or to contest the grounds on which the notice has been issued.

5. The learned Government Advocate fairly states that the impugned demand notice dated 14.05.2026 be considered as a show cause notice and the petitioner would be at liberty to respond to the said show cause notice and the concerned authorities shall issue final order after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

6. In view of the aforesaid statement, we dispose of the present petition by directing that the impugned demand notice be considered as a show cause notice. The petitioner may respond to the same within a period of two weeks from date. The concerned authorities shall take an informed decision in accordance with law after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

7. We clarify that all rights and contentions of the parties including, regarding the validity of Rule 44A of the Rules are reserved.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top