. 'A :3 ~ '%'rriiE STATE d§9i{ARNATAKA
(By-..$ri {'BASAVARAJ KAREDDY GOVF. ADVOCATE. )
--' ';§i~i'D'*}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 25%
PRESENT K ? "" ":"u
THE HONBLE MR. 23.9. a:1'b:A_§§;;RA1$i;
. ANVfi.. .' '
Tm: HON'BLE b;ii;«:V}u;:-:;%1f;§«:*?;«:: ii;%3..;é;§I:.sHAH1T
wars AP;>'EALI r:
BE'}'WEEN;__,--~ __ _ z _ «
1 THE m:i Pi3'1:"::gfi c:'(:1s.r1m?;~"<;?-;i}c}I\:,%3',I':<: V
IfE;!§Si§:'!;1\§'15DIS'i7i"€iCE"~,. ' "
I%;£AS$AN;'
2 T:~:1::.V_IjEPU*aY' <'§GI§S«Effi?"3ATOR op' FOREST
HASSAN B;s':fRr::'I",«
;'HA_$sAN.-._ -
MP. BYITS SECRETARY,
'DE3?'A'ififM§£N'i' OF REVENUE,
g "-»'M.S.5BUi'§;DING,
VID~H_A3'4A vazamn
' BA.;mAL0RE 1. APPELLANTS
1 M S DHARMAPPA
AGED ABOUT' 42 YEARS,
S] C) NANJEGOWDA
aggrieved by the said order of the learned Singiegi ~
16.10.2608 respondents in the writ .pe_t§iti01;' '
this appeai. There is delay of I59 V{;£ay$”‘ir1:’
and application has been fi1ec§ fm_Vf cozitioeing *
in filing the appea}.
4. We have b.ea1’d t#l£1e’ Advocate
appearing for ‘ x V
5. Adfiecéte appearing for the
appeflaets has been satisfactoriiy
explaineéie :h¢V’1e§:x:fied:::’S::ag1e Judge was net justified in
seti37z1g_a$id’e” exder endorsement issued by the
V’ .appeiia1fi:.=; §er:i1ission to fell the trees situate in the
the writ petitionem-respendents herein
the contentions raised by the appeiiants
thewerit iaefifion and therefore, the cider passed by the
A [T Single Judge is liable to he get aside.
\?
the matter to the appellants fo1_*_…f1x_:s h VCf V
application.
8,’ It is clear fiom the o:t.'”ths: _ in
W.P.N.3932/2007 disposgd ofani £hat”ti;e order
passed in the said Writ final and in the
sajsd writ peizitiogz: for consideration
regaxding ._i”e]1’t]1e trees in the 1:31:16
bciongin.g%—-to_ in the said decision,
foflowfig =t}1e of this Court in
W.P.No.43G()_§3;’ ;9§i5 matters disposcti of on
19.7,._; 99a {M.LIKR§$Hr;E: GOWDA 3.-. ANOTHER vs. BEPUTY
ANOTHER) while considering the similar
f12.aif-:31 have been laid dowu for
V V’ _ C0I1§:’:”§1(‘:I”£’+i’1’Zi{);’1:.’V.()f the application far seeking permission to fell
$126 ;t;’ees*s:ituate in the land belonging :0 the Writ: pefifioners
;m:d»–fc«sl1oWi;t1g the said decisifln in W.P.No.43f)O3/1993 the
% m.:H.:ter was remitted to tile respondents in the writ petition
for flesh ciisposai in accoxdance with Law in the light of the
observations made in the order. In View of the fact that the
x)’
order passed in the said \V.P.No.3932/ 2007 V.
has become final anti detaii gtlidcfings b}1avc.3:)€éc2:’:a.[ ciqwz; ” ‘V
by this court in w.1D.No.430o3:{1995 .
19.7. 3996, it is clear that flT1f2.’i3;§”3I)1iCé3.Vfi:)_I’1V’ is n<:pv§ ft) ;
be conskiemci by the appcfiafifs the
directions issued in of an
3.5.2.2008. The decided the
contcnticns 013;" are: kept open 'it;
be urged we hold that
the Judge is justifieei and
does 21%': '.'-§1%.fi'é2'– er illegality as to Call fer
interf::r_enceL t1;i.s i–:1tr:_a appeal.
' {Share is'Vc«§é'Iisiy of 159 days in filing the appcai and
' t1§£§:..afidav'it filed in support of the appiication,
it'i;-{(336337 averments made in the application would
'yoniy as to how the delay has ozacurmd in filing the
and no cause much less suficient cause is made out
' fbjr condcning the inorciinate delay of 159 days. Accordingly,
u five hold that there is no merit in the application fiicd for
M3
condoning the delay in ffling the appeal and
failowirxg order:
The Writ appeal is dismissegi o1g;”v$1§e
and also oil Kznerits.
Index; –Yes/Nfl{i
V’ “vXVeb’:L..I.§&0E§t:. ‘[63./Nu” ….. .. v