IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.22480 OF 2016 (GM-FOR) BETWEEN:
SRI. FAROOQ AGED 34 YEARS S/O H. SOOFI KUNHI R/O SANTYAR HOUSE ARYAPU POST & VILLAGE PUTTUR-574210 DAKSHINA KANNADA.
THE GENERAL POWER OF ATTONRNEY HOLDER OF SRI. KRISHNA KAMATH S/O K. HARIRAYA KAMATH AGED 46 YEARS R/AT KRISHNA NAGARA ARAMBOOR, SULLIA TALUK-574239 DAKSHINA KANNADA.
(By Mr. SHIVAPRASAD K.B. ADV., FOR Mr. K. JEEVAN, ADV.,) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE FORESTER PUTTUR RANGE PUTTUR-574201 DAKSHINA KANNADA.
2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER & THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT MANGALURU-575001.
… PETITIONER … RESPONDENTS (By Mr. VIJAY KUMAR A. PATIL, LEARNED AGA) - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS, ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ORDER OR DIRECTION, IN THE NATURE OF WRIT QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 9-10-2009 IN F.O.C.No.48/2004-05 PASSED BY THRE R-2 THE LEARNED AUTHORISED OFFICER AND THE DY. CONSERVATION OF FOREST, D.K. DISTRICT, MANGALURU AT ANNX-B TO THE W.P. & ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.Shivaprasad K.B. for Mr.Jeevan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Vijay Kumar A. Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With consent of the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the order dated 09.10.2009 and the order dated 30.11.2015.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record. From perusal of the record, it is apparent that the petitioner was the owner of Tata lorry bearing No.MYZ 5173 of 1976 model. The aforesaid vehicle was seized on 27.08.2004 for commission of a offence under Section 33(V) and Section 71(A) of the Karnataka Forest Act,1963 and under Rule 144 & 166 of the Karnataka forest Rules,1969. That in the aforesaid vehicle, firewood was being carried from Badanur to Hobli. On investigation, the driver of the lorry produced the permit which had expired on 26.08.2004. Thereupon, the proceedings for confiscation was initiated by the competent authority by an order dated 09.10.2009 passed an order of confiscation of the vehicle. Being aggrieved the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mangalore. The Appellate Authority by an order dated 30.11.2015 has affirmed the order passed by the competent authority.
5. From perusal of the order, it is evident that it was admitted by the petitioner that firewood was being transported in the lorry from Badanur to Hobli and the permit for transportation of firewood was to carry 25 cubic metres. However, only 21.121 cubic metres of firewood was transported in the said lorry. It was further found that the licence was issued to Madanur to Hobli and firewood was transported through a diverted route. Admittedly, the permit of the lorry had expired. Thus, the aforesaid vehicle of the petitioner was found to be involved in the commission of the forest offence. The concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by the competent authority as well as the appellate authority which are based on no evidence. The aforesaid finding of fact by no stretch of imagination can be said to be perverse. It is well settled in law that in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot reappreciate the evidence until and unless the findings are shown to be perverse and are based on non evidence. In the instant case, the findings are based on admitted facts, which by no stretch of imagination cannot be said to be perverse or based on no evidence. In fact situation of the case, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. In the result, the petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE SS