V._._...<.:.'n..".» V. m-uuwnannn ruwrl muuzil Ur Immwsmniwe HIKE?! CQURT QF %ARMfieTfis§(i'-K HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH IN THE HIGH C003? 0? KRRflAEfiKA.ET BANGRLGR3 nawsn 7313 was 04*' an? or ssrrsnasa, zoos ;<]} V; BEFORE was HUfi'BLE xx. JUSTICE Rug anm1u"~ fa ' r.p.xo.13e41l2ao7¢sn§ro3; 2u€» " 3KTU$£N m.A.Ansns.AJA 47 vxnns SIS ABBUD kfififihfl, ~ 3 no 563, 111 caoss .t. ,_ ~v MELLIKARJUMA KXTN, B H Rana y_5; snxnunsawun manux wH".Vv_ ; =«. ¢;u~ Hmssam nxsr _*._ «' '=g ;g;VP3w;?1onxx (By sri: K $a§AvE$:,~fi3gV; .;§* KND 3 3 THE nE2UT¥ cafimissiafinfi Hnssnn HJSTRICT A I 333333 V" : V"2A Taé §n?fimy cofiéififinron or rungs? A H%3fihN B13TRICT "3as$§fl_- A ' 3 arawz or nmknamaxa RE? E? I?S SECRETRRY V,' BEBEfiffl£HT or REVENUE nFLS Eflihfliflfi A~X',v1nHama vzsnaz V Efifihbfikfi ... RESPONDENTS
” f=:§y5szi: aansunna pnnsnn, Gav? pnanzn i
WU: W. i_.,.,:, W. “WWO ¥J«”WR”Wfl9-IUl”‘KUlY”.I’\’§ WW. W nnrvimmaflamfla HIWH1 wum ur mmmmn ms:-4 mam’ mt mmmmm Haw
_.mted_;:é«%. A1~I”i1..,£’.¥;i4/2007
“ms 23.9. 1′: L31: unnzn. Juzmcnzs 226 man z2′:__.__
£114′ 1′:-as CGNSTXTUTIOH or mm». eanxxc -re
THE cmwuuxcmxon mu NI L.fl.’34!2OD’3′ VIBE: a:mg.=sM.’3;;:’M_’
ISSUED 33′ R2 mm Assn nxnmr was nasroanxriffs ,’:’b’?°
ccmslnsn -ms mass or ms _;§xfx~z1’1.V:sa:ss:ljj~’V»fir
mconaaacg hrrrt-I Law AND nzriiiun
msmmzzz IN THE AUCTION ma 21;L’1,_.i9§s §K’r §.11¢£n”
Anna; ‘il’I’i’}{ 18% or m’r*m2ss-r n.1’rv.”i*.sV’ or
TI Lia DATE OF ?.P:’fl4!£NT.
THIS war. 18 cfiééijrzs “_’1oR .L’F’£.m,%A”‘PI§bEInIHhRY
mamm IN ‘B’ @3909 ‘r-:«r::sV1:z.’xv’,:’ nan:
THE Passowluca: " ' V Tim _ " " _.'q\uos ti wing the
<:<z.t'::er.:tz1e3aV' gm V the ' " izéibugned cosmunicatian
banning
Vii-:3.;.%S.i*'£{EE':}2':1'Ig':v«§}'.1.991-92 issued by the atacond
_'Ara5I5°¥3dén.i:.« – j*§§;:§.a Rrmaxurc-K and further
4§'aV§lk$.'.:1a§f .% fiirection dixacting the
to consider the case at the
in accordazmn with law and raiund.
aanwnt: realized in the aucti-an datad
mum. I-3.’-1.:-ya… w. !\r1.l\l19″‘werlI\d”Eu nunuwn Mwuni VI” nflmiflflflflflfl HIWH fiaUUK§ U!” KAKNA’f.AsKo&
Faust case is deaided as the petitioner
yaid an amazznt of 1,08,3’M{=- being the
of tha timber. tax and penalty.-if
csompounding.
3. ma petitioxmr
W. P.Ne . H.202! 1995 aaagiligg–VxifiihéLigogiectnfiha
of the andomenzent by
the first rgsgjaxgdazgfil _ _ onnr,
Haasan :Ifj’fi;v§ “VVV§;a1d ‘(git
pot it ian. .h»a.:§ k:’_::7a’e::i2;,’: by this r:.-a-u.rt
in its{yard-uzffi fii$ta§§~.,,:_:2″£}f°'”” September 1995
I pres-duced _ directing the
.R;gsp¢;f.:3,!e¥}j:a the ownership and alas
V *é’:;:t:;a;::_;1;t lands in ztagard ta which
V naught. The Deputy
vc*;:Vnasaa2;;&e-;t” a.u1.:.”‘.V’o:E Faxast, Mobila Saree has
camase notice dated 31–5-199’?
” H a case against the petitioner
‘§&f;d”‘aontis¢ating the timber Vida Anmxura-G.
fhemaftez, the Daputy Conaexxmtor of Forest
– –~— f.*’*7_'”””‘” w wwmmm w-NM w M-mnmm mm wuss: ur mmmm/A Hm!-as mm’: 06 MMMAKA mm
Goverrmumt. It is further utatad that that;
is net pzzevision to refund than
realizeci in wezctien held on 21-1—-19ae f;§§}igi§%F%%%7
Jkrmaamre-K. It is than c:nVt:i#nt.ign’u”
petitiaoner that. the “iv
cmmunicatian is issued
affomiing reasonable’. .’ “to-..
p at it i-one 1: . fihutfifgré g._ _ V inmugned
cwmumication m:t;’. “”1§ a’ :E.n View
«sf nc:n~co¢::1;=«l§fi;_a__3r£;»€;§::-:1;’.”‘ . Ev.-ev.”‘2;.”I;c:iple of
natural VV,§1x::§’t’::’.*i..a’;:é£a;:;-1:5′: ta this
backgr¢fii3§i.’- ” presented the
inatant ‘(a’ri”t__ 2:¥_::.” .. .’
«i._V » V11′-» the learned counsel tom
V the’. the leamad Gm-unmant
Eiaadn}? gfigeéfiing :’or the Respondents.
5;: caxeful pemaal of 1:113 fixqaugmd
‘figfififiaation wide Amzastura–K dated
fiilioazzoov issued by the second zenpondunt,
—“In snlruwwmw gym:-wmma ‘awn c:Ita”‘&mmIfl”15w”I«I1\m”E unuwaw mwwmi W5′ asxnmmnienamm mawn MWMHE WT RMKNRKMKM WWW” hwufli Q’?
appcxtunity, tbs imugned communication _
iaauafi cannct ha austainahle and it amounté g®
to grass violation af yxinciplaa of n&§%%@i§*nfl’
juatica. Thnxafiora, it woulq aniti§§ ii $. ”
prayer direction ia isa§§& ” tfi< %h@f?l
rospandenta ta consider E§g;a§£a$6nfati§ha~°
given by thy petitianer v;dfi Afingxu£earJ,§o
J4 which wbuld meet tfi3 efid§{§f:§§fitice.
3. in the lighiiafi”#u§mias£@ng»fi@de by the
learned ccnnéaijfgx ¢h§’£es9¢Etiva paxtios,
ths w£ifi3petiti§fi}fi1§é by the petitioner is
allowed in pgrt; f%§ §mpugnad communication
d§fied ?fli;fQ4!§$fi§HHfiida ____ Annexure~K an the
fii§ %§ %fia %§g¢nd respondent is hereby sat
7V_V aai§§ an$ %h§f§§§ter is remitted back to the
$a9com% ;§$§édnnt tar raaonsidnnatian and to
R #§£é’&p#$p;iate deciaien in aacexdance with
a £ lam; fiftat affording raanunable opportunity
fl””»M_A”§§m ‘ tha petitioner; considering the
E rayresentatione at Annnxur¢u*J ta J4 and
.. . Mu.» -uvvml
wt I\mnI’r1lr\fllfl E”i!%?l”l MUUKV Ur fififimflgfififi
diasmae szsf the matter as expeditiaualy an
izosssible, at any rate within four mont2ia “–« “‘–.
frcm the date af zeceipt of the capy ¢fi thi§§*
Grdar. é