...... 1 .....
IN THE HIGH COURT' OF KARHATAKA A1' BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 1273 DAY OF NOVEMBER 2008
BEFORE
mm I-ION'BI.E !VlR..JU8'I'ICE 3.3. m9.'r1:,,..{.%_M ' ~
wnrr PETITIOII 80.3304 or 2006 ' " '
BETWEEN:
Smt. N. Sushecla,
W/o.S1iaivasa.,
Aged about 42 years, V '_ «_ _«
R/at Sri Nilaya, Shastha _ .
R.E).Na_gar Post, Kasargod, * _ A
Kexala State. "
(By Sri K.M.N§;tai:aj, é2§_1§y.}. 1:
AND:
1. The State of __
Represégztcd by itS.S€V(>§1'€:.t:a'3j,7,:,.
Depa1'!1:3ent cf Fewest,' _ '
Vidhana Soudha,
" % The 'Auitiiozjsed Afifigcsr and
A D_e}i$'uty* {_f;o1_1se_r'vator of Folests,
' Mangaipre Mangalorc.
3. '.I'1*1.¢é"2*«\utVh'<A).V;""1Ve~<V:?é1VV0mc:er anti
De'p11ty__(30né;ervator of Forests,
Kappa Forts: Division, Koppa.
» ':*he- Conservator of Forests,
' ,Mang'aloIt Division, Mangalore. RESPONDENTS
V{By__-.’§5mt.SaI*ojini Muthanna, HCGP.)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 8:; 227 of the
” Consfimtion of India praying to quash the ozrier dated
08.04.2003 in 0.R.No.104/1995»-96 passed by the 2″”
…..2….
respondent vide Annexure«A by issuing writ of ceréorari and
etc.
This Petition coming on for final hearing t?.1is”:Vt:i{L’:i_.’§’47:,’….V’the
Court made the renewing» ‘ u ” r.-
01. In this writ petition, pefifioner
order dated 08.04.2003 iiide in” V T’
OR.No.104-/199396 by the 29*’ Ifisfifhndegf -;.Ai1fTi1orisfed Oficer
8:. the Deputy Conse1vév3.to.1..;0«’ of Division,
Mangaloxt, ammgg. pg 11 Addifional
Sessions Judge. g§:édé’r dated 09.02.2005
in Cr1.A.No_.22 1:G;f v ChaIlenge is also made
to the no.§ice__ -issued by the Collector 55 the
Authorised”Qfi’1cer’,e§de Annexm’e~J informing the
petitioner’ that.’ of arrears due in a. sum of
not pa” “” ‘xd; , will be recovered as arrears of land
desirained property by way of public sale.
é leading to this Writ petition stated in nutshell
AA {11e petitioner was the owner of lorry hearing
—:ir:§Ai’;*§1:’1»*’a.A’fiion No.KA«19 2934. The said vehicle was found
V the sandal Wood billets when the same was
‘4 intercepted by the Forest Ofiicem. A forest cfience case was
%,
._ 6 ..
Iony had been used for illicit transportation of sandalwood and
spiit pieces weighing about 690 kgs.
06. Though this order was passed on 09.02.2005,
did not choose to challenge the same tin 01.03.2005″. .tfi;<';'
after a notice vide AflflC}CiII'E"J issued 'i..'by;«
Collector, Kasargod, notit3ri1Lg the "a
Rs.S,()0,000/- would be Vieiirentie by 'V
initiating action against the..peti1jonei4VL_:tbfl'1te__the itieiitioner chose
to approach this by
O7. Learned contended that the
impugned .io1'ders fifl:flCx1#eé'Al are not sustainable in
-law. He that the notice issued vfie
Annexured ‘ the provisions contained under
.vSeetjon’§; }i.v2″of “2’-‘tr.:t____egs. the procedure laid down thexein is
“‘trio}s:ted_,V It is ‘hisveontention that the petitioner was unable to
the Authorised Officer as the lorry was
V stoien 133? and after the same was stolen the lony was
a forest ofience, on account of which it was again
the Forest Oficers. He submits that if only the
Qetitioner was notified about the initiation of proceedings for
fb of the bond she would have brought to the notice of
_. ..
and was therefore seized. The Authorised Oflicer is not
concerned with this explanation which the pefifioner wafifieto
offer.
12. As per the terms of the bond, if t];:ere-is’ afiy
producfion of the vehicle, the consequeizee
the amount meufioned in the bn§t1d.._Vby
In these cincunastances, the authoffties -have.” vvinifiated
proceedings to recover the atzeais of lafid
revenue. Hence, a11′–t_}1e the petitioner
have no SubStaI.1C€§–.,iI}1%L:a}i?’. ~ illerewbeixxg no merit in
this writ petition, Same and is dismissed.
Sd/-E
Judge