IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOS.46974-975/2013 (GM-FOR) BETWEEN:
1. RAMASWAMY, S/O PALLANIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O BAPLIKE VILLAGE, BANAKAL HOBLI, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALORE DISTRICT-577113.
2. B.M. ANNAPPA, S/O M. MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O BAPLIKE VILLAGE, BANAKAL HOBLI, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALORE DISTRICT-577 113. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI.S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, CHICKMAGALORE DIVISION, CHICKMAGALORE DISTRICT-577 113.
3. ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, MUDIGERE SUB-DIVISION, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALORE DISTRICT-577 113. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIJAY KUMAR A PATIL, AGA FOR R1-R3) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICES DATED 2.9.2013 AND 1.10.2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT VIDE ANN-H AND J AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.S.V. Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri.Vijaykumar A Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3;
2. Petitions are admitted for hearing. With the consent of the parties, same is heard finally.
3. In these petitions, the petitioners inter alia have assailed the validity of the notices dated 2.9.2013 and 1.10.2013 issued by Respondent No.3.
4. When the matter was taken up today, the learned counsel for the petitioners while inviting the attention of this Court to the averments made in para 10 of the objections filed on behalf of the respondents, submitted that from the very perusal of the averments made in the aforesaid paragraph, it is evident that the impugned notices have been issued in compliance of the interim order dated 3.7.2013 passed by the Bench of this Court in W.P.No.21882/2013. However, it is pointed out that subsequently, the aforesaid writ petition has been disposed off by an order dated 5.6.2017 and therefore, the impugned show cause notices cannot be sustained in the eye of law. On the other hand, learned Additional Government. Advocate submits that the vendor of the petitioners have been found to be an encroacher in proceedings under Section 64 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and the petitioners have also challenged the validity of the aforesaid order in the appeal before the appellate authority.
5. Be that as it may, from the perusal of the paragraph 10 of the objections filed on behalf of the respondent, it is evident that the notices dated 2.9.2013 and 1.10.2013 have been issued to the petitioners on the basis of an interim order passed by a Bench of this Court dated 3.7.2013 in W.P.No.21882/2013. Since the aforesaid writ petition has already been finally disposed off by an order dated 5.6.2017, therefore from the foundation of issuance of the impugned show cause notices dated 2.9.2013 and 1.10.2013, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The impugned show cause notices are quashed, however, the respondents are granted liberty to take action against the petitioners if so advised, in accordance with law, on the basis of the orders which may have been passed against the petitioners.
With the aforesaid liberty, these petitions are disposed off.
Sd/- JUDGE cbc