M/S Bharat Timber Construction vs. The State Of Karnataka

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition based on the statement made by the State Government. It was held that a survey would be carried out within the shortest possible time, preferably in a day, at the cost of the State Government. If the petitioner had deposited Rs. 41,300/- by way of survey expenses under protest, this amount was to be refunded to the petitioner within one month. The Court explicitly stated that all contentions of the petitioner would remain open, including the right to raise objections regarding the correctness of estimations done through the survey. Furthermore, the issue canvassed based on the objection for the use of drones was also kept open. A copy of the survey report was to be provided to the petitioner by the respondents. The Court did not delve into the merits of the use of drones or the correctness of estimations as these were expressly kept open for future contention.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Bharat Timber Construction Company Limited, filed a writ petition challenging Condition No. 10 of a demand letter issued by the Department of Mines and Geology. This condition stipulated that in stone quarry lease areas, the estimation of excavated minor mineral quantity should be done using FTs/Drone/GST equipment, and the leaseholder should bear the survey expenses. The petitioner objected to this condition, particularly the requirement to bear the survey costs. The Court had previously noted a submission from the State Government that it would not insist on the leaseholder bearing survey expenses and would endeavor to conduct surveys quickly. The petitioner accepted this suggestion but reserved all contentions regarding the correctness of estimations and the use of drones. The petitioner had deposited Rs. 41,300/- under protest for the survey expenses.

Key Issues

1. Whether Condition No. 10 of the demand letter, mandating the use of specific equipment (FTs/Drone/GST) for estimating excavated minor minerals and requiring the leaseholder to bear the survey expenses, is legally sustainable under the relevant provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994? Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the condition imposing the survey expenses on the leaseholder was objectionable. They also reserved all contentions regarding the correctness of estimations made using the specified equipment and the use of drones. Revenue's contentions: The State Government, through its counsel, submitted that it would not insist on the leaseholder bearing the expenses of the survey work and would endeavor to conduct the survey within the shortest possible time, preferably in a day.