Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1019 (KAR)

MSPL Limited v. State of Karnataka

2022-08-02

ALOK ARADHE, S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

body2022
ORDER : 1. State of Karnataka had put to an auction, lease in respect of land admeasuring 30.09 hectares of forest land situate in Ramanadurga Village, Sandur Taluk, Ballari District. The bid of petitioner No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MSPL Ltd.’ for short) was accepted and a letter of intent dated 06.10.2018 was issued in its favour. In the Letter of Intent, it was provided that MSPL Ltd. is required to obtain permissions and clearances, including a forest clearance under Section 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, within a period of 30 months from the date of issuance of Letter of Intent. On completion of the aforesaid formalities, the State of Karnataka is required to execute a mining lease and a mine development and production agreement with MSPL Ltd. 2. The State of Karnataka has issued a show cause notice dated 13.06.2022, the MSPL Ltd. have filed this petition, in which a writ of certiorari has been sought for to quash the notice dated 13.06.2022, in addition, the petitioners have sought a writ of mandamus directing the State Government to extend the term of Letter of Intent until the issuance/transfer of forest clearance and to perform all actions required to transfer and vest the forest clearance in respect of mining lease. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the authority erred in posing itself a wrong question and therefore, has committed error of jurisdiction. It is further submitted that, the show cause notice has been issued to the MSPL Ltd., on the ground that the MSPL Ltd. has failed to obtain forest clearance which is not required. It is also submitted that, Section 8B in Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act has been substituted with effect from 28.03.2021. It is also submitted that in view of Para 3.8 of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Samaj Parivartana Samudaya vs. State of Karnataka, (2017) 11 SCC 509, the impugned show cause notice is liable to be quashed. It is pointed out that even if relief of quashment of notice is not granted to the petitioners, they are entitled to other reliefs sought for in the petition. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kishore Kumar Khaitan and Another vs. Praveen Kumar Singh, (2006) 3 SCC 312 . 4. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kishore Kumar Khaitan and Another vs. Praveen Kumar Singh, (2006) 3 SCC 312 . 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the impugned show cause notice has not been demonstrated to be an ex facie a ‘nullity’ or totally “without jurisdiction.” It is further submitted that, petitioners have already entered appearance in the proceedings and have sought time to file reply. Therefore, the petitioners should be asked to submit a reply to the aforesaid show cause notice. 5. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the records. The relevant extract of the impugned show-cause notice dated 13.06.2022 reads as under: “17. In view of the above, I am therefore directed to inform you to show cause why: (a) The Letter of Intent dated 06.10.2018 should not be declared as invalidated as per Proviso-1 to Rule 10(6) of Mineral Auction Rules, 2015. (b) An appropriate demand should not be raised for amounts liable to be paid by M/s. MPSL - the successful bidder from 22.06.2021 in terms of condition No. 5 of the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 30.07.2015 along with payment of applicable Interest in terms of Rule 14 of the Mineral Auction Rules, 2015.” 6. The aforesaid notice has been issued on the basis of facts stated in Para 1 to 16 therein. The aforesaid notice has neither been shown to be ex facie a ‘nullity’ nor totally “without jurisdiction.” It cannot be said that initiation of the proceedings is totally unauthorized and therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to direct that the petitioners shall be granted two weeks time to enable them to file reply to the impugned show cause notice. It will be open to the petitioners to raise all contentions as are permissible in law. 7. Needless to state that the aforesaid contentions so raised shall be adverted to by the authority after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It will be open to the petitioners to raise all contentions as are permissible in law. 7. Needless to state that the aforesaid contentions so raised shall be adverted to by the authority after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. After conclusion of the proceedings initiated pursuance to the show cause notice dated 13.06.2022, the competent authority shall advert to the claim of the petitioners with regard to extension of Letter of Intent and grievance of the petitioners with regard to transfer and vesting of the forest clearance. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. 8. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.