IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.58045 OF 2018 (GM-FOR) BETWEEN:
Sri. B. N. Praveena @ Praveen Gowda, S/o late Nagappa Gowda, Aged about 51 years, R/o Makkivalli Village, Melukoppa Grama, Dhare Koppa Post, Sringeri Taluk – 577 139, Chikamagalur District.
(By Sri. D. C. Jagadeesh, Advocate) AND:
1. The Authorized Officer & Deputy Conservator of Forest, Bale Honnur Sub Division, Bale Honnur, Shrungeri Taluk – 577 139, Chikamagaluru.
2. The Chief Conservator of Forest, Chikamagaluru Circle, Forest Department, Chikamagaluru – 577 101.
… Petitioner 3. The Assistant Conservator of Forest, Bale Honnur Division, Shrungeri Taluk – 577 139, Chikamagaluru Division.
… Respondents (By Sri. Vijay Kumar A. Patil, AGA) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned order dated 09.05.2018 vide Annexure – D passed by the R-1 and the order dated 17.11.2018 vide Annexure – E passed by the R-2 as a same are illegal and unsustainable in law and etc.
This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing , this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri. D.C. Jagadeesh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri. Vijay Kumar A. Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition, petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the order dated 09.05.2018 as well as the order dated 17.11.2018 passed by respondent No.2.
3. Facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that the proceeding for dispossession of the petitioner in respect of the forest land was initiated under Section 64A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and the order of eviction was passed by the Competent Authority on 09.05.2018. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal. However, on 17.11.2018, the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority on the ground that the same is barred by six days.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appellate authority has adopted hyper technical approach while dealing with the application for condonation of delay.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has supported the order passed by the appellate authority.
6. I have considered the submissions made by both sides. It is well settled in law that expression ‘sufficient cause’ should be liberally construed so as to advance the cause of justice. In the instant case, there was a delay of only six days in filing the appeal, which was sufficiently explained by the petitioner, which is evident by the averments made for condonation of delay. The appellate authority has adopted hyper technical approach while dealing with the issue with regard to the condonation of delay. In the result, the impugned order dated 17.11.2018 is hereby quashed and set aside and the appellate authority is directed to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner on merits by a speaking order expeditiously in accordance with law.
7. Needless to state that in case the petitioner files an application for stay before the appellate authority, the appellate authority shall pass an appropriate order on the application for stay within a period of one week from the date of receipt of such an application.
Accordingly, petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-