Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

M B Dhavudh @ Davood vs Station House Officer

High Court Of Karnataka|09 December, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE BETWEEN:
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.50743/2019(GM-FOR) M.B. DHAVUDH @ DAVOOD S/O LATE BABASAHEB, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT CHENNANGOLLI VILLAGE, GONIKOPPAL, VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT, PIN CODE-571236.
(BY SRI MAHADEVA R. K., ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . STATION HOUSE OFFICER, GONIKOPPA POLICE STATION GONIKOPPA CIRCLE, VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT, PIN CODE-571201 2 . AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST VIRAJPET DIVISION, VIRAJPET, KODAGU DISTRICT- 571201.
(BY SRI VIJAY KUMAR A PATIL, AGA) **** ...PETITIONER …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND DIRECT THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, VIRAJPET DIVISION, VIRAJPET / R-2 TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO RELEASE THE MAHINDRA BOLERO VEHICLE BEARING REG.No.KA-22-N-2336 IN DISPUTE DATED 07.11.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-C IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER WITHIN 7 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON’BLE COURT.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner in the present writ petition has sought for a writ of mandamus directing the Authorised Officer and Deputy Conservator of Forests, Virajpet Division, Virajpet/2nd respondent to consider his application dated 7.11.2019 to release the Mahindra Bolero Vehicle bearing No.KA-22-N-2336 in Dispute No. BUD/CR-71(A)/2019-20/2227 in his favour within 7 days from the date of the order.
2. According to the petitioner the respondent- Police seized the Mahindra Bolero Vehicle bearing No.KA-22-N-2336 in FIR No.66/2019 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC at Ponnampet for the alleged offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC and Sections 165 and 144 of the Karnataka Forest Rules.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that has he is the absolute owner of the above said vehicle and registration certificate of the said vehicle stands in his name. On 16.6.2019 at about 4.00 a.m., when the petitioner along with others was transporting wooden logs of timber in a lorry without permission for alleged offences, the crane was used for loading the timber to the lorry, and at that time, the 2nd respondent- Authorised Officer seized the said lorry and other vehicles including the petitioner’s crane. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application on 17.10.2019 before the Authorised Officer for release of the said vehicle, but till today, the same has not been considered nor any order has been passed. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief sought for.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis.
5. Sri R.K. Mahadeva, learned Counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition contended that the application filed by the petitioner for release of the vehicle is not considered and if it is prolonged, the very purpose of filing the writ petition would be frustrated and the petitioner would be put to great hardship. He further contended that there is no prima facie case made out against the petitioner and therefore, the Authorised Officer ought to have considered the said application and passed appropriate orders, but the same has not been done. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition.
6. Per contra, Sri Vijay Kumar A Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate on instructions from the 1st respondent submits that the application of the petitioner will be considered and appropriate orders would be passed within a period of four weeks. The said submission is placed on record.
7. In view of the above, without adverting to the merits and demerits of the case, it is suffice to dispose off the writ petition directing respondent No.2 to consider the application filed by the petitioner for release of the vehicle and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/- Judge Nsu/-
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

M B Dhavudh @ Davood vs Station House Officer

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
09 December, 2019
Judges
  • B Veerappa