IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOS.40457-74 OF 2017 (GM-FOR) BETWEEN:
1. SRI P P JAYANANDA S/O P M POOVAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 2. SMT P J SUMITHRA W/O P P JAYANANDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT SAMPIGEKAD ESTATE CHERALASRIMANGALA VILLAGE SUNTIKOPPA NAD SOMAWARPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT - 571237 REP BY THEIR GPA HOLDER SRI M A POONACHA S/O M P APPACHU AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT NO 10/3 COLLEGE RAOD, MADIKERI TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT - 571201 3. SRI Y A DEVARAJ S/O Y A ANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 4. SRI Y A ANNAD S/O Y A ANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 5. SRI Y L SHEKAR S/O ALTE Y P LEELADHAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 6. SMT Y S SUMITHA W/O Y L SHEKAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 7. SRI Y M BELLIAPPA S/O YANKANA MUTHANNA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 8. SMT Y B RUKMINI W/O Y M BELLIAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 9. SRI Y M KUSHALAPPA S/O Y S MUTHANNA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 10. SRI Y P PRAKASH S/O Y D POOVAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 11. SMT Y P PREMKUMARI W/O Y P PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 12. SRI Y A MANU S/O YANKANA AIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 13. SMT Y M KIRANA S/O Y A MANU AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS PETITIONER NO.3 TO 13 ARE RESIDENT OF GIRIYAPPA ESTATE NARAGANE VILLAGE SUNTIKOPPA HOBLI, SOMWARPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT - 571237 REP BY THEIR GPA HOLDER SRI N S SHYAM KUMAR, S/O LATE N K SHEKARAN AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NEAR JUNIOR COLLEGE VIRAJPET TALUK - 571218 14. SMT RESHMA W/O MUDDURA SOMANNA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT ANJANAGERI - BETAGERI VILLAGE SUNTIKOPPA HOBLI, SOMWARPETE TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT - 571237 REP BY HER GPA HOLDER SRI EOWARD GEORGE WILLIMS S/O T SELVARAJ AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDENT OF CSI CHURCH COMPOUND B M ROAD SUNTIKOPPA KODAGU DISTRICT - 571237 15. SR.K.KANAKARATNA W/O KANTHARAJ AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 16. SRI K SUJAY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O KANTHARAJ BOTH ARE R/O SUJAY ESTATE, ATHUR-NULLORE VILLAGE, MATHIKAD POST, SUNTIKOPPA, SOMAVARPETE TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 237 REP BY THEIR GPA HOLDER SRI A B AZEEZ, S/O LATE M BADUYA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/O EVER GREEN TRADERS, SUNTIKOPPA, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 237 17. SRI P T UTTAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O LATE THAMMAPPA, R/O HOSUR VILLAGE, AMMATHI, VIRAJPETE TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 218 REP BY HIS G.P.A HOLDER SRI N S SURESH, S/O LATE N K SHEKARAN AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O NEAR GOWRI TANK, VIRAJPETE TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 218 18. SRI D SURESH DASAPPA S/O LATE DASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDENT GARGANDUR VILLAGE, SOMAWARPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 237 REP BY HIS GPA HOLDER, SR K T ZUBAIR S/O LATE A K KAMAL AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O KOHINOOR ROAD, MADIKERI, KODAGU-571 201 ... PETITIONERS (BY SMT.LEELA P DEVADIGA, ADV. FOR A.K.SUBBAIAH, ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOREST ENVIRONMENT AND ECOLOGY DEPARTMENT, KARANTAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT ROOM NO.442,4TH FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS ARANYA BHAVAN 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003 3. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS KODAGU CIRCLE, MADIKERI KODAGGU-571 201 4. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS MADIKERI DIVISION, MADIKERI, KODAGU-571 201 5. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS VIRAJPETE DIVISION, VIRAJPETE, KODAGU-571 218 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.DINESH RAO, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W SRI.VIJAY KUMAR A PATIL, LEARNED ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) - - -
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED: 21.08.2017 AT ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.Leela P. Devadiga for Mr.A.K.Subbaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Dinesh Rao, learned Additional Advocate General along with Mr.Vijay Kumar A. Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5.
2. The writ petitions are admitted for hearing.
With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same are heard finally.
3. In these petitions under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioners seeks quashment of Government order dated 21.08.2017. Alternatively, the petitioners has prayed for a direction to declare the Circular dated 21.08.2017 is applicable to the various produce belonging to the State and not privately trees or any other forest produce. The petitioners also seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to dispose off the timber logs belonging to the petitioners by way of a public auction strictly in accordance with the forest manual and not E-tender.
4. Facts giving rise to filing of these petitions briefly stated are that on 16.07.2016, the respondent No.1, permitted disposal of e-tender timber logs by e- tender. The land owners- petitioners filed objections to the Government Order dated 16.07.2016. It is the case of the petitioners that after considering all the objection preferred by the petitioners, the respondent No.1 issued another Circular directing sale by public auction. Thereafter, e-tender was cancelled and timber logs were sold on public auction and on 01st and 02.06.2016. Thereafter, again on 21.08.2017, a Circular was issued directing the sale of various produce by e-tender only. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioners who are the owners of the coffee estate have approached this Court seeking the reliefs as stated supra.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Rule 153 of the Karnataka Forest Manual does not permit e-auction there is less competition and there is no transparency. It is also submitted that Rule 85 of the Karnataka Forest Rules,1969 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’ for short) do not apply to the trees of which the petitioners are the owners. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that under Rule 85 of the Rules E-auction is permitted and the E-auction is resorted in order to prevent the form of cartel and to promote the transparency while inviting the attention of the table mentioned in para 8 of the objection, it is mentioned that ever since, the respondents has e-auctioned, the revenue released from the sale of timber and other forest produce has suddenly increased. It is further submitted that the auction for disposal of the timber and other forest produce by e-auction has been taken place in accordance with the rules, which does not suffer from any infirmity.
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Section 2(7) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 defines the expression ‘forest produce’ which inter alia includes timber and other forest produce mentioned therein. Relevant extract of Rule 85(1) of the Rules provides that methods of selling the forest produce, which reads as under:
No forest produce shall be sold by any method other than the following:
(i) Sale by auction or tender or tender-cum- auction.
(ii) Sale at the sanctioned schedule of rates in depots.
(iii) Sale by issue of licences at the sanctioned seigniorage rates.
Provided that any other method may be restored to with the previous sanction of Government whenever the Chief Conservator of forests considers it desirable to do so in the interest of the department.
7. From perusal of the aforesaid Rule, it is evident that it is permissible for the respondents to dispose of the timber by resort to e-auction. From the table apendid to para 8 of the objections, it is evident that by adopting the process of e-auction for disposal of the forest produce, the revenue realized from auction sale has increased every year from 2012-13 to 2017-18. The respondents have taken a decision to auction the forest produce in accordance with the Rules with which no infirmity can be found. The submission that the e- auction is not permissible under Rule 153 of the Karnataka Forest Manual is misconceived, as the aforesaid manual is not a rule but is an executive instruction. It is well settled that the e-tender issued by the State Government would apply to the fact situation of the case, which is not covered under the Rules. It is pertinent to note that the executive rules cannot run contrary to the statutory provisions mentioned under Rule 85 of the Karnataka Forest Rules. Therefore, the auction for disposal of the timber through e-auction cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. Therefore, no case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is made out.
In the result, the writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE SS