1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 3111 day of November 2010
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MR.J.S.KHEHAR, CHIEF JL:fS'1'Ie'_ej.: _
THE HONBLE M'R.JUSTIC-E"A-.--S.BQPAI\{N}\ ''
w.p.No.14552/2o1o_{oM--FoR}._
BETWEEN :
I. Ashapura Minechem Ltd VA
A company incorporated under_th..e
Companies Act having its OffiACC,fc1t'
405. South Block, "Manipal 'i:Tofwei=s_'
Bangalore--56000i V i __ .
Rep by its Commerc1ai--¥$:cecz.itiVe L .0
Mr. Vaize.vAhr_nied K "
~ 7 _V _» j . V Petitioner
(By Siri B_"C Thirttvengadanl, f'5:dv.,]
E. Deputy Conservatorp of,._Forest
Ankola , Karura; ;fiist'rict_.
2. The Ra--n_geFo1'~est._Officer
Bellekeri, Ankola Taluk
g '~3'tJtta'i' Kanndda,__District
Conservator
A '~ :._(B)r"Sri R.G. Kolle. AGA for RLR3)
-- A ' '--..Bellelierii?ost. Ankola Taluk
Uttar Kannada District
"Karwar
" V Respondents
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
.2 Constitution of india praying to direct the respondents to
2' release 5000 MT of iron ores belonging to the petitioner,
seized by the R2, 8: kept in the custody of the R3, at Bilekere
Port, as per seizure report Vide Annexure--G to this petition
and etc.,
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing
this day, Chief Justice made the following:
""W"*9i_,_"-a"
2
ORDER
J.S.KI-IEHAR. C.J. (Oral) :
The petitioner has moved an application,.die.s:ir_ing
to withdraw the instant writ petition. This_.;’irayeij’
at the hands of the petitioner has gbeen–‘op’pxo’sed::by * .
State Government, by filing a statenjienlt ofj
2. During the courseuof:’hearing.,__learned counsel
for the respondents invited”atVter1~tion toethe decision
rendered in V Patil vs.
Dr.Mahesh ‘otliers (AIR 1937 so
294)i-and attention to the observations
recorded thereof. Paragraph 36 relied
the learned counsel for the respondents is being
» :extracted– hereunder;
‘ ‘Thelallegations made in the petition disclose a
lamentable state of affairs in one of the premier
. universities of India. The petitioner might have
‘ moved in his private interest but enquiry into the
conduct of the examiners of the Bombay
A University in one of the highest medical degrees
was a matter of public interest. Such state of
affairs having been brought to the notice of the
court, it was the duty of the court to the public
that the truth and the validity of the allegations
made be inquired into. It was in furtherance of
public interest that an enquiry into the state of
affairs of public institution becomes necessary and
private litigation assumes the character of public
interest litigation and such an enquiry cannot be
4
will not be, in any manner be prejudicial to any claim of
the respondents.
Saw,
(_:.hie{ V A
mv*
Index: Y/ N