M/S.Hothur Steels vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 August, 2010

Writ Petition Nos.23233/ 2010 & '23eQJ:§/20'1'o :c;M.-1v;iv1~:Sj~._

IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF' AUGUST, 2010,
:PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.PA'lx'.1L :  A.
AND   1'

THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE' 'A.$.   

Between:

[By SA-K'. B. 'sh:§xaAj'}K:§m;;1'~»;«Advocate}

M/s. Hothur Steels,  , 
Hothur Arcade.  Road, V  ~
Contonment, ' ' --   .

Be11a.ry;'533..104"   e  

Reprevse:1te_d  it._s"Gjen_e'ra1 Manager {M},
Aged A 55 'Yea1*is. _ "

1 ' ' "  VA  Petitioner

A__n_<i_= 'I

The Syate {if Vfiarflataka,
Represented by its Secretary.

 T. Depa.f*tme--:1t of Inéustries & Commerce,

  Vikasa'S0'Ltdha.

Bangamre-560001 .
~~ DireCt0r/ Commissioner,
Departxnent of Mines & Geologr,

AA  No.49, Khanija Bhavan,

" Race Course R0 (1.
Bangalore-56 



{Development 8: Regulation) Act, in so far as pet~i_tioner

is concerned; to prohibit the respondents jlfrom

collecting the royalty charges twice contrarfntov  

of the Mines and Minerals (DeVelopm_ent 

Act, in so far as petitioner is concerned;'v_'to"direc§t*th'e,

respondents to issue Transport permits 'from the

petitioner's  destination of the
buyer for the  consumption in the
manufacturiiig  upon to pay the
royalty   and also to direct
the   charges collected
illegally   for the second time without
autlz-oriptylof A V l

  We  heard learned cousnel for the

  flfieititionerv"an'd:§iearned Additional Government Advocate

app_ear__ing, for respondents.

 ;Learned counsel appearing for both the parties,

in  the outset submitted that, the subject matter

  ~~-involved in these cases is directly covered by the order

at



passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 21st
January 2010 in W.P.Nos. 35711 & 36199-200/2009
(M/s. Kiran Enterprises, Bangalore Vs. The State of

Karnataka and others) and connected Wrnattuer.

Therefore, they submitted that, following  _

the instant writ petitions may alsohbe   * _  if 

4. The submission inade-._by_"'1earned-.counsel
both the parties, as statedisupra, is ..p1aced:on§ re.£1Qrd.
5. The instant writ ___petitio_ns are___disposed of

following the order  Bench of this

Cour:,"dhai;eed':ii'?,lstifiaiiaary ao'i0 in W.P.Nos. 35711 32:
3619§1+3'0D/  Enterprises. Bangalore

Vs. The f4"S_tat~ev" of évkarnataka and others) and

 ed11ne*eted..yn1attVer"and for the reasons stated therein

   directions:

' Kiri) The petitioner herein is permitted to

 .y  submit his application before the jurisdictional

 Vauthorities of the respondents for refund of

royalty, along Wit necessary receipts for having
V//,.



paid the royalty within four weeks from the date

of receipt of a copy of this order.

(ii) If such an application is   .

petitioner, the jurisdictiona}~authoi?ities':pf 

respondents are directed to iietceive'-the»saIfie._H7«:

and pass appropriate  
law and in the siight  tjtiepigitoerits/.o§1"ders
passed by this  and
dispose  V pp their    2 vexpeditiously as
 Advocate is permitted
to filelzmentnot   for respondents within four

weeks from"'t.od'ay. 

  .....  

JUDGE

Sd/-3
JUDGE

it ‘ ~ it Vtsn*”‘_«