High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri K S Chandrashekar vs The Conservator Of Forests on 8 December, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri K S Chandrashekar vs The Conservator Of Forests on 8 December, 2008
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & B.S.Patil
 V'   2   ..... .. 'V

" " " 3 4. 3m. Niiaufer Akbar, Govt. Advocate)

_ %     Writ Appaal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka
_ ~ Act praying to set aside the order passed in the Writ
' -petifion No.2908/ 2003 dateri 1 1.08.2008.

1
IN THE HIGH COURT' OF KARRATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 8'93 DAY OF DECEMBER. 2008
PRESEET

ma Horram MR. P.D.D!NA!{AR.AN, CHIEF 
mm Honrnm MR.JU8'!'!CE s.s.PAfm.  F" %

WRIT APPEAL 80.1415 or    _   

BETWEEN:

Siri K.S.€311a:udrashr$kar,

S] o Shankarayya Acharya,
Aged about 32 years, '
R/o Raghavcndra Nagar,
P-0-Kappa. V    .. " ~ 

(By Sri  zgéi'%%¢»caf£e;L_'V

1. The C<.)11ser\f':'¥ai;tz):1?c:f.}'i'o1A'£:;stV§,:
Chiciéqznagaiom Dist,

2;' fI"h¢_ Deputy Consgezvator of
Fo:tt*:$tS{' '  --. 
Kappa Divisifizi, Kappa,
 Disiriact. ... REBPOHDEHTB

 



4
1636.0) of the Rules, the appeal ought to have been filed Within

three months but the appeal was filed belatedly. Aggrieve-d,T by

this Order of the lat respondent and the order   H

respondent canceling the permission, the L” ‘

the writ petition out of which the pmse–ai’appeai.¢axise$;’ _ n

4. The learned Single Judge 1s.’a’.s..;1isn:iiss:éd Vfl1ev:i~%:jit..pet£tkei1

holding that no saw mill could be “to within
10 King. from the forest as The
learned Single Judge mr:heri’_:ofi§§.e ‘fi§1§~/fomst oficials
visited the ‘a4-xi’ found that it fell
within 10 it was contended
that the _ committed an error in not
condoning Jfithe 2″‘ respondent was not

justified ; ‘in _.acti:11g_jo1:11 copy of which was not

‘:.fi_ ix-1” “n*.si1écf imé Apgeeoifi, the learned Single Judge rejected the

the writ petition.

‘ We h;_:ive.ufiea1ti the learned Counsel for the parties and

” ” ‘T eemeidezed the materials on record.

-73.3 seen that the agpeflant herein had filed an

wapplieafion seeking cendonation of delay in filing the Appeal

” “e}:ic1osing a medical certificate evidencing the treament taken

remitted; ‘back utuo authority with a direction to

a”p_nea¢’_ I ‘by the appeilant on merits and pass

5

by him from the Orthopedic Surgeon. The meciical certificate
also discloses that he was advised to take ms’: for four
on account of serious backache. As the asse1;iic,$;__«*
appellant is that his unit is located beyond the: .o
from the Forest area, W6 are of
should be given an opportunity to ux~g:éY.tAliisz
Appellate Authority. We are a1so’«ot’.the V. ‘V
shown by the appellant forj’ toe doléijf”iio-ooftrgs to’ijé’a£§oepted in
View of the medical certtificaio

‘7. In the sippeal is alioweé.

The order passioii Jtidge is set aside. The

writ petition is _Aei11o9s:e{e<i.VA3'«Thar:Viozxier passed by the 1" respon<:Ient-

Apizaellate Aiitlglozfityi is set aside. The matter is

accordance with law. T
I
Chief Jusfica

Sd/-é
51593

Index: Yes)' No