119' THE men COURT or I CIRCUIT BENCH V DATED THIS mg 22% I5AY W-'~30 £9: X BE?0RE % [ THE HON'BLE MR. _S;_.AB£3UL-- NAZEER WRIT PET11*Ic;2iI;.§";_;,,g_;4_rr:;;¢§ 1. §L' 1G8:j'_E3:M~MM-8! BETWEEN: V.V.S.R. Ch,b11k_laz'*i-= S/0. Pxakash i~?a~=;:'2V ' Aged 49 years; ii; . Civil Contracmftf. Indhmiagaf ' Opp:T.S'.P.T.AB.;§)Vam"-- " Hospct V PETITIONER (aysgi; SN. H;«§.t;a;,.5g;1__v,.; A'rei3";' T. " 4 1.' _ V Th:-.Star:;e of Kamataka By? its Secretary to Departznent of Mines and Geology A. , _ Vikas Soudha ' Ba11gaiore -- 560 001 2;; The Senior Geologist (Minerals) Departxncnt of Mines and Geology Kappa! ' .. RESPONDENTS
(By Sn’. N. Dinesh Rae, GA)
This writ petition is filed under Articles
the Constitution of India praying to q”o.asi1._t31:e 4ord.er_
dt.29.01.2(}O8 passed by the Senior Geoiogist’:v.{Mine1fa}s)
Sept. of Mines and Geolog/, Koypal, vide An._n–E.– v
This writ petition coming oaztsfofordersv
Court made the foiiowing:
V g_13aEa;;’–
The petitioner was lease as per
Annexure-A for building stones
over acies of Hirekaranakandi village,
Koppa1A’T.a1’uk, The 293 respondent had
issued. a noiticeas dated 10.12.2007 calling
.’ V. upon the V’petitionef”ias to Why the aforesaid lease deed
‘Viu)e.V:<'_:ance1lec1 for the reasons stated in the said
notiee. contention of the petitioner that he has sent
"ya repfigfias per An.nexnre~C dated 11.91.2008. It is his
"_f!1;:tftiier contention that the said. reply] objection has been
filed Within 30 days from the date of receipt of the Show
cause notice. Thereafter, the 2311*' respondent has passed an
order at Annexure-E dated 29.01.2008 cancelling the }ease
5'
ax
. ¢.."1'..–'
granted to the petitioner as per Annexuzvfi. V'
has caiied in question the said order tttthis ?;%zxitj)etiti($1;..'_:'A.
2. Learned Counsel fofithe petitioner_Vi§Qt1i£i”‘eontend ” L’
that the petiticmer has flied objeceeg; gemm 30
days from the date of Cause notice at
Annexure-B. The V2′-*5 “e.onside1*ing the
said reply] Am1exuz’e~E. It
is further was not heard in the
matterw is unflatexai in natuxe
and is otjgxjzeed csf natural justice. On the
other; 11:.-md, Government Advocate has sought to
. A”ju,5.{i::f§ i11¢’w1’1E'”«’..ig1Ztedv’ettle;t*.
v_.-I carefully considered the argument of the
‘iear;:1e<:I' Cfiiunsel far the parties made at the Bar and perused
piaeed on record.
4. The material on record clearly discloses that the
petitioner has sent his reply)’ objection Within 30 days firom
1
it
4
the date of receipt of the show cause notice. A
impugned order shows that the 2’31 zespondejnt ‘
considered the said reply/objection. _;The42né.”_’e_ase_V K ”
concluded that the petitioner has not fiIe_d’~objeetions
that basis, the impugned OI’dC1:”1_}téiSz been dd ooflthe r L’
View that the 2nd respondent “in_._pn$:§ing the
impugned order at eonsidering the
objection filed by em p¢e~e§’n§r_t “.é%t§c’iVA:,”:v:{~§,[駧:V;o2:1dent is also
nequized to . the passing the
order is unilateral in
nature of natnral justice.
E”~.1;e the writ petition succeeds and it is
in part. The order at Annexure–E dated
29;(}.;.2QG8:i.§§* liereby quashed. The petitioner is directed to
is-etore the End respondent on 05.08,20{)8 Without any
notice from the 2″ respondent. The 2*” respondent
V’ 1! 315% directed consider the reply/objection filed by the
petitioner, hear him and pass appropriate order:-3 thereon on
or before 12.08.2008. k
\
6. As noticed above, the impugned (}I'(‘.l’:£*f,’;”}f’ H
29.01.2008. This Court has not gIf:zfi1:ed.a1iy o0¢m-00′ V
staying the operation of the said orécr.
21″‘ respondent to dispose Ifiéitigcr ‘”beforo
12.8.2008. Having mgaxti ‘F0 of
the case, the pmitioner qlianying and
liftizlg the bui}§1iI1__g sjtoiieéfi of his
reply] objectéono Quarrying and
lifting with the lease deed
(Anz1eXur0~PL)’_’is subj.ef:f:’to’: order which may be gassed by
_ tho 2%§§1’i7ves.pondé;1tVi:V1 teftms of this order. No costs.
Sd/-1
Judge