Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Ashok S Kinagi, who make up the division bench of the Karnataka High Court, have made it clear that appeals brought before the State Government to challenge demand notices issued by the Deputy Director of the Department of Mining and Geology and approved by the Director the Controlling Authority are maintainable.

A division bench 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 bench made reference to the rules and acknowledged that the State Government designated certain Department of Mines and Geology officers as the Controlling Authority by way of notification dated 18.11.2016. Reference is made to the Joint Directors North Zone/South Zone, and the bench noted that the Rules apply to those designated officers and the area specified is under 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)."

The statement was made in a case brought by A.N.Murthy, a lessee of the quarry granted a 20-year lease by the Director of the Department of Mining and Geology in 2014.

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

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.22038 OF 2022