IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.27641/2013 (GM – FOR) BETWEEN:
SRI.B.S.NARAYANAGOWDA, S/O LATE SRI. SOMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/AT BASANI GRAMA, BANAKAL HOBLI, MOODIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALORE DISTRICT – 577 113.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI.BHARGAV GOPALASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. C.R.GOPALASWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, CHICKMAGALORE DISTRICT, CHICKMAGALORE – 577 101.
2. THE ASST. CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, MOODIGERE SUB – DIVISION, MOODIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALORE DISTRICT – 577 101.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIJAY KUMAR A PATIL, AGA FOR R1 - 3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.05.2013 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE – P AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Mr. Bhargav Gopalaswamy, advocate for Mr. C.R.Gopalaswamy, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr.Vijay Kumar A.Patil, Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. Petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the order dated 20.05.2013, passed by the Competent Authority under the Karnataka State Forest Act, 1963 in a proceedings initiated under Section 64A of the said act.
4. When the matter is taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an appeal can be preferred under Section 64A(3) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and the petitioner be granted liberty to take such recourse of remedy by filing an appeal.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that this petition is pending before this Court since 2012.
6. Be that as it may. Now the fact remains is that petitioner is an agriculturist. A bench of this Court had granted interim order on 08.07.2013. Taking into consideration the fact that the matter requires adjudication of the factual aspects, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition and that in case the petitioner files an appeal within a period of four weeks from today, the Competent Authority shall expeditiously dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Till the petitioner files the appeal, the ad-
interim order granted by the Bench of this Court on 08.07.2013 shall continue.
However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE HJ