{"id":215821,"date":"2009-04-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-chowgle-and-company-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-24-april-2009"},"modified":"2018-10-20T14:30:07","modified_gmt":"2018-10-20T09:00:07","slug":"ms-chowgle-and-company-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-24-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-chowgle-and-company-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-24-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"M\/S. Chowgle And Company vs State Of Karnataka on 24 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S. Chowgle And Company vs State Of Karnataka on 24 April, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & V.G.Sabhahit<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDATED Tl'-IIS THE 24TH DAY or APRIL, 2009\nPRESENT\nTI-IE I-ION'BLE MR. 9.1). JJINAKARAN, CHIEF JUSTICE': ~ \nAND i i i\n\nTI-IE HON'BLE MR.JUs'r1c1: V.G. sA3HA_H1'1f_j  V \n\nwnrr plgrrrxon No.-4231 of mg  --  *\nBetween: V4 1 it\n\nM\/s. Chowgie and Company\nMarmugao Harbour\n\nGoa f  \nBy its GPA Holder Mr. Sanjeev Krgr\ufb01ar f\n\nS \/0 Sri Hiralal Bhagat  ' w '\nAged about 36 years\nResiding at Hospet\n\n       'V   ...Petitioner\n[By SI$2'D.L.N'..Ra=o, Sr, Advocate\n'4  fol'?'_$mti_v:Annradha)v  '\n\nAnd:\n\n1. State of Karnataka _ ' -  \nRep by its Principal Secretary\n Departmentsbof Forest and'\"Ec'o1ogy and Environment\nA ' M.S. 'Bu\ufb02dinig, Dr.\" 'Ambedkar Veedi\nBanga}o1\"e_~\" 560 _UOx1' = .\n\n The Forester ' it\n\n' \" N.E.B. Divisior:  A\nSandur Range '\n\n~  'Bellary\n\n   Forest Officer\n\n 'S'\u00e91nd'.\u00a71r, Beilary District\n\nSandur' Range\n\n \n\n\n\n2\n\n4. The Deputy Conservator of Forests\nBellary Division\nBellary\n\n5. The Director of Mines and Geology\nDepartment of Mines and Geology\n\"Khanija Bhavan\", 5th Floor\nRace Course Road\nBangalore -- 560 001   ..\n\n6. The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology\nDepartment of Mines  Geology 3\n\nHospet V   _:\nV * Respondents<\/pre>\n
(by Sri Udaya Holla, Advocate. General  ‘
\nalong with  ._Vee_’rappa’,’ GA) ‘~- _<\/p>\n
This writ petition is filed under-‘V’Aritic1es  and 227 of the
\nConstitution of India praying to .*qua.sh the “\u00bb\ufb01rstiv_inforrr1ation report dt.
\n3.2.2009 bearing Foc_..Na,_1’31\/2008439 \ufb01led lbyr the 2% respondent dt
\n3.2.2009 in the Court’  Jl\u00a7~\ufb01+’C, Sandur, vid.er.AnneX’ure~M; and etc.<\/p>\n
This writ petition” hearing this day, the<\/p>\n
Court de1iverecl”the’ io1.1\u00a7wingi-\u00a7\u00a2’* _  _
\nV lf\ufb02gigguenr<\/p>\n
lDe_livered__ hy:_VP;IS{‘Dinakaran, C.J .)<\/p>\n
  1)  lithe\u00ab_report of the Lokayukta could be the<\/p>\n
basis for’regi5.tering”‘the First Information Report dated 3.2.2009<\/p>\n
 __against’t.he–.rpetitio’aeir=.and to pass an order dated 3.2.2009 seizing<\/p>\n
i7;;’he iron ore alliegehcillto have illegally mined in the forest area as well<\/p>\n
4:  t’oo1.s, vehicles and machinery used for such illegal mining;<\/p>\n
 such FIR and the order of seizure can be quashed by<\/p>\n
 the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the<\/p>\n
Constitution of India, are the questions that arise for our<\/p>\n
consideration in the present writ petition.<\/p>\n
2) The State Government initially granted mining…iease’over’ <\/p>\n
an area of 459.63 hectares in favour of M\/ s.  if<\/p>\n
Mining Company in respect of iron ore on for.ia” of<\/p>\n
twenty years under the provisions Of”._’MiI}CS aud”~MineraIsl’~<\/p>\n
(Development and Regulation) Act,  Mineral; Clloinceslsion
\nRules, 1960. Vide noti\ufb01vcation   the State
\nGovernment grated sanction forrlease in favour
\nof the petitioner fI’0.I:I1~:iWE}”S.  Company.
\nAccordingly, M \/53.   mtlompany executed<\/p>\n
transfer deeld __ in’ favour of the petitioner
\ntransferring the mining ‘l._ea:se*.i :_l’l’hle”pletitioner applied for renewal of
\nthe mining please  con\ufb01ning its request for renewal
\n  asper themadvise of the Forest Department. The<\/p>\n
State lla~ftie.1′ consideration of the application of the<\/p>\n
7 _ S”petitioner,_”granted 4:’.li;’}’A1K\u20ac same. The mining lease was renewed for 3.<\/p>\n
 periorjwd of twenty years on 19.4.2007 by the State<\/p>\n
 ll’-ti}overnine_nt’ bearing Ml… No.25-46 for 100 hectares.<\/p>\n
{   E<\/p>\n
 _i\u00b0tha_t:\n<\/p>\n
4<\/span><\/p>\n
3) The undisputed factual matrix of the case are that the<\/p>\n
impugned iron ore mining is located within the forest area anclthe<\/p>\n
same is governed by the provisions of the Forest  <\/p>\n
Act, 1980 (for short ‘the FC Act’) requiring the prior. apiitvoya-iiiioi the ”<\/p>\n
Central Government under Section 2 of the  A;cti’fori.dive’rs’ioAnof <\/p>\n
the forest land for non–forest activi1:y,.’_vi2:. nzining p1cp.1rpose,i. which <\/p>\n
had also been granted by the Centraliittovernme11ti:’th’at pursuant
\nto prior approval of the l{:a1*natal{a:_liloresta.Departrnent, the
\npetitioner has entered into  the fourth
\nrespondent–I)eputy C:ons.eprvato__r  the petitioner has
\na subsisting leaseias  theiviolatioin of the conditions of
\nthe lease agreernientiivitveiefpcorrtplainediiiiagainst the petitioner and
\nthe same  of the Lokayukta and that
\nbased on such all’egation;v._ the Second respondent registered First<\/p>\n
In.forr_natiorii'<Report dateti'3..i.2..2009 for alleged forest offences.<\/p>\n
   it is contended on behalf of the petitioner<\/p>\n
3(1)  the impugned proceedings –FIR dated
\n V. _ 93.2.2009 and the seizure. order dated 3.2.2009<\/p>\n
are liable to be quashed, as the same are only<\/p>\n
(111)<\/span><\/p>\n
based upon the report of the Lokayukta which<\/p>\n
is yet to be accepted by the Government;\n<\/p>\n
the Lokayukta report cannot be put againstithei’ ff  ‘7’
\npetitioner, as the petitioner was not giVe’r1—-iany”‘V. ‘<\/p>\n
opportunity of being heard :_:=before_1  <\/p>\n
Lokayukta;\n<\/p>\n
assuming the re:_sponder1__ts:A’~:p1″Qp0sei
\naction based on  Lokaytiiktalpilprcpport, the
\nsecond responderizt  fgiiven an<\/p>\n
opporttirlzitygtto __th.e”pe1ti_tionerf.to’ explain its case<\/p>\n
against.   theilgoklayukta report;\n<\/p>\n
\u00bb<\/p>\n
assuzning the “respondents have got power to<\/p>\n
; initiate action against the petitioner under<\/p>\n
  oiwthe Karnataka Forest Act, 1963<\/p>\n
it  lie” <\/p>\n
Lokayukta Team has conducted ground <\/p>\n
survey sketch of the boundaries and a1ong’—-wiith other; d:o’cun1en”ts <\/p>\n
and other necessary input have beenigiven to the _Karr-1atiakaiiState
\nRemote Sensing Organisation.  Satellite irnagery. The
\nlearned Advocate General, based in   from the<\/p>\n
Principal Chief Conservator of Fore.sts\u00ab,eiisujbniits’ that the Satellite<\/p>\n
imagery and Ztheiiisketch \ufb01igepgrea’-the\u00a3eo’n”‘on the basis of the ops
\nis one of the technical Stools ‘ifo_ri’i’i-denti\ufb01cation of encroachment at
\nmacro level. }~Iowe\\*.er’,v the._ac~tual”boundaries of the leased out area<\/p>\n
vvould_be :djei3ter:r1ined atthe..micro level by the ground survey.<\/p>\n
   contended that the mere fact that the<\/p>\n
iiV.__iij:5e’ti.tioner’–wasv_vnotiheard by the Lokayukta cannot be a ground to<\/p>\n
”  thatznnoilegal action can be initiated by \ufb01ling a FIR against<\/p>\n
  who had committed illegality. The Lokayukta report<\/p>\n
 noit by itself be conclusive evidence for initiating action by<\/p>\n
C<\/p>\n
way of \ufb01ling FIR against the persons who had committed illegality,<\/p>\n
but still could be a basiszfor setting the law in motion by <\/p>\n
against illegal mining in the forest area and to seize _the”ill_e-gallyi _<\/p>\n
mined iron ore and tools, machineries and vehicle’s~iused, for such ”<\/p>\n
illegal mining. Filing an FIR is only an inzitiationfjvof-reaction”against j<\/p>\n
the petitioner and the respondent,is.’_yet to iilwestigatsiyintoliithe <\/p>\n
matter and therefore the petitioner is niotllentitled’to:”seek\ufb02t;;\u00a7uashing
\nof the FER on an imaginary’groundlnthavtithliei’lfesponiderlt do not
\npropose to investigate the .–‘theA-i.:le_s.pondents have
\nalready investigated,;”biit.Vgliave=A__not iound:”a:nyV_.eyfidence against the<\/p>\n
petitioner. Therefore, t-he tlfle’ FIR is premature.<\/p>\n
5.3)  1earniei\u00a3–~.A”dvocats.___C}eneral further contends that
\nneither the \ufb01lingwan\u00bbappli_cation.”fortissuance of Forest Transit Pass
\n(‘F’I’P’, for short) nor is.st1ance’ of the FTP nor issuance of the Way<\/p>\n
 146 siicl 149 of the Karnataka Forest Rules<\/p>\n
 by itself \ufb01i.-ground to reject the Lokayukta report. The<\/p>\n
iV’rall’eged infi__rmi_ty hetiyeen the \ufb01eld map sketch and the Satellite<\/p>\n
”  cannot be a ground to reject the Lokayukta report or to<\/p>\n
 FIR dated 3.2.2009 and the seizure order dated<\/p>\n
3.2.2009, as the second respondent-authority is still continuing<\/p>\n
investigation.\n<\/p>\n
5.4) The learned Advocate General, however,  <\/p>\n
the respondents are ready to give notice to the petiti’o,ner_i’before<\/p>\n
such \ufb01eld survey and inspection in the presence of t;he,:pe_titioner”1<\/p>\n
and Controller of Mines, Indian Bureau of Bangalore~, <\/p>\n
with the nominee, not below the the by
\nthe Director General, Survey ~._of India’!  learned ee\ufb01ldvocate
\nGeneral also fairly submits thath   objection to
\npermit the petitioner.–toolperation in the
\nundisputed area  for such
\npurpose,   to the right of the forest
\nauthorities taking con\ufb01scate the tools, vehicles
\nand machineries,  to  iindings of the joint inspection and
\nfurther   matter to be made in the presence of<\/p>\n
the petieticnler, :”–Con:troiler of Mines, Indian Bureau of Mines,<\/p>\n
n’BVan.galore’,\u00ab__alo__s1g  the nominee of the Director General, Survey<\/p>\n
“”o’fdIndia,pwhoyis not below the rank of a Deputy Director, after<\/p>\n
  –noti.ce to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
V\u00bb\/'””:\n<\/p>\n
9<\/span><\/p>\n
5.5) The learned Advocate General further submits that the<\/p>\n
seized articles wouid be returned to the petitioner providued_ith_e<\/p>\n
petitioner gives an undertaking to hand–over the posse_sj’sion.e’_c–f:  M<\/p>\n
impugned tools, vehicles and machinery as and when. ”  <\/p>\n
the respondent for further investigationihor  jii.ri~sdic’tion.aplp<\/p>\n
Court for the trial _as well as for_ seizure” andcV\u00bb”iconfiscation <\/p>\n
proceedings that might be initiated  concerned<\/p>\n
under the provisions of the Forest Act,   in fiitiire.<\/p>\n
6) In View of\u00e9the a1:;oii\u00e9’\u00bb   the following
\nquestions, which:__      in Writ Petition
\nNo.38}2 of J2’OQvv9’V”~ti:l’.5li?!Q$t%i.ii._:’iCli\u00a5”O’1ii.:::,l.JfV;3:\u00a74.V2009, arise for gm
\ncon siderationgin   ‘  ‘ <\/p>\n
(I) W’hethuer’*vt}reVrepsort of the Lokayukta can be<\/p>\n
  hasis  the impugned FIR dated
\n the order of seizure dated<\/p>\n
A  3.,3.*::.oTo\u00a7?\n<\/p>\n
it V’ tt\u00e9liiil  Whether it is proper for this Court to exercise<\/p>\n
 the power of judicial review under Article 226<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
of the Constitution of india to quash the<\/p>\n
First Information Report dated 3.2.2009?<\/p>\n
\n(III) Whether the second respondent ‘V’ <\/p>\n
empowered to seize the ma’ehine2:y;\u00bb <\/p>\n
equipment, iron ore and vehicle,js    A<\/p>\n
the petitioner, by an<o1*\u00abder dated
\nfor having committeiiyii iilegel' lrinini\ufb01\u00e9ag
\noperation in the forest  " ~._ _' \u00bb  0 " \u00ab _ _<\/p>\n
(IV) Whether the au'thori.tVie3ag1   Forest<\/p>\n
Depart11i.e::r%f'da;i-e. "e:nsgpVowered' towtake action<\/p>\n
agai'nst.A:"z(iof\u00e9ftions9  'th'eeee-eonditions of the<\/p>\n
geese " 0
\n7.1.   "\n<\/p>\n
_ Whether Vthereport of the Lokayukta can be the
\n  for the\u00abimpugr1ed FIR dated 3.2.2009 and
\nA r ,  the o1’der. of seizure dated 3.2.2009?<\/p>\n
 the  same question, in identicai facts and<\/p>\n
_eircumstari’ces”‘*V.of.the case, this Court, by order dated 13.4.2009<\/p>\n
4.  in Writv0013’etition No.3812 of 2009 held as hereunder:<\/p>\n
11<\/span><\/p>\n
“6. 1) Issue No.1<\/p>\n
Whether the report of the Lokayulcta can be<\/p>\n
the basis for the impugned FIR dated
\n3.2.2009 and the order of seizure dated
\n3.2.2009? — i<\/p>\n
6.2) Of course, it is seriously contended” ‘<\/p>\n
Vijayashankar, learned senior counsel appearing for <\/p>\n
petitioner that it would be very unsafe for the irespor1de~n_ts.. ” <\/p>\n
or for the jurisdictional Magistrate’inu..ch less to   to” <\/p>\n
act upon and\/ or to initiate, to invesitigate, to prosecute OT’:r’.’O
\npass any orders based uponythe Lokayulttakeportiiwhichvvis
\nyet to be accepted by the ‘Go’Jerriment;.oi=_’based upon the
\nSatellite maps enclosed along withiitlie  report
\nand relied upon ubyiithe re;sg\u00a75i:d\u00e9n:.\u00a7” ‘hereinhideritifying the
\nimpugned areas;-__as Ee’ncro.a’che:’ul  thepetitioner, as
\nsuch report or  conclusive evidence
\nagainst .\u00bbthe~  = as”–.itne_,1iJ ibvevre. hot parties to the
\nLokayulcta proceedings’Vnor._they were given any notice or
\nopportunity to\ufb01le t.heirA:_obie’otion.s\u00abto the Lokayukta report or
\nthe GPS sketch_es,. while the impugned FIR dated
\n3.2.2909 and passingvthe border of seizure dated 3.2.2009.<\/p>\n
.A 6.3) We areiybut, unable to appreciate that the Lokayukta<\/p>\n
 r-report’   basis for initiating any lawful action<\/p>\n
against those who are involved in unlawful acts in an<\/p>\n
illegal rncinne:’.” One should not forget that the office of the<\/p>\n
  “Lolcayuikta held by a former Judge of the Apex Court. It is<\/p>\n
 to assume or presume that the said high authority<\/p>\n
 w_ou’ld: give a report without any material whatsoever.<\/p>\n
  by WT_herefore, we are unable to digest the contention that the<\/p>\n
12<\/span><\/p>\n
Lokayukta report cannot be a basis for even to initiate an<\/p>\n
action against an illegal act. However, on the ground that <\/p>\n
the petitioner did not have an opportunity of being heard”w .’<\/p>\n
before the Lolcayukta nor before initiating an action by\ufb02lthe-\u00ab  — ‘T ‘<\/p>\n
second respondent herein based on the Lolcayukta report  in<\/p>\n
the sketches enclosed thereto, we do not intend totalce’any it<\/p>\n
view against the petitioner in this regard as would”‘be’7’*-t<\/p>\n
otherwise opposed to the principles of naturalj_ustice.g’V.”_; A i ” ‘<\/p>\n
6.4) Of course, it is a settledV’Vi’c\u00bbl.a”w that’ exercise ‘of<\/p>\n
administrative powers will…stand-“vitiated-,.\ufb02’ there-.,is..Va
\nmanifest error of record or cafpoweri isarbitrarg or
\nsuch power had been exercised  non.>co’ris:ideration or
\nnon-application _of.Im~ind  for non–\n<\/p>\n
compliance of  But the fact
\nthat the petitioner’ not’:e’:’,V’\\fven..:iankzopportunity before
\ninitiating an  ‘L-okagutka report or the
\nsketches’ enclosed\u00ab”‘\ufb01O\u00abV_I_hef rep_ort..by– itself cannot be a ground
\nto quash”‘the- FIR’  and the seizure order
\ndated 3. as  re_port:_uofthe Lokayukta is presumed<\/p>\n
to be made based  materials that are to be substantiated<\/p>\n
i V.  by the prosecution atvappropriate stage. Therefore, it may<\/p>\n
 not be properfoi~ this court to conclude that at prima facie<\/p>\n
“stag’e, \u00abno-gage was”‘made out.\n<\/p>\n
6. S)”‘Similarlg;; it is settled law that the electronic evidence<\/p>\n
Wis admissible in evidence. It may also be not proper for this<\/p>\n
‘rcouirt-to jump into the conclusion that the respondents are<\/p>\n
i  n.ot’entitled to place reliance upon the satellite imagery, as<\/p>\n
  on  electronic evidence is admissible in evidence; but the<\/p>\n
13<\/span><\/p>\n
same has to be substantiated by the respondents in the<\/p>\n
trial before the competent court and the petitioner is also <\/p>\n
entitled to rebut the same so that the rule of law woul::_l”–r .”<\/p>\n
prevail. Therefore, to contend that it would not be safe:Hfor’~\u00abi — ‘T V<\/p>\n
the respondents to initiate law\ufb01il action based  in<\/p>\n
Lokayukta report or the satellite sketches henclosued <\/p>\n
therewith against the unlawful acts allegedtrtoivhaue <\/p>\n
committed by the petitioner by illegal ‘min-ing operationi’<\/p>\n
encroaching into the forest area”~..in violation of  <\/p>\n
conditions of the lease agreement enit’e.red.uby the petitioner
\nwith the respondentsforest authorit-ies, lacksvtlegval
\nsanctity; because this is not’ a ,case_wh:vere”t@,respondents
\npropose to shut down an activity-.which_i\u00a7.;[arried’–o’n by the
\npetitioners law\ufb014~lly_:\u00bb._,bia:t unfortunately,”itfisthe case of the
\nrespondents,:_.    on :ift.he report of the
\nLolcayukta, that  petitio.ne.r_’ haisihallegedly violated the
\nmaintenance ‘of and whereupon
\nthe observance V  — enacted to protect the<\/p>\n
environment and eco_log\u00aby’–is sought to be ensured.<\/p>\n
 ” When’ the Vhlghokauyukta finds fault against the<\/p>\n
he  –executive.sfor–theirfailure’ to implement such laws to protect<\/p>\n
 “environ!ricant’v and ecology, the petitioner projects the<\/p>\n
ihgrievancev :”aga-;’.rist~” the executives for acting upon the<\/p>\n
Lokayukta  But, under such circumstances, in our<\/p>\n
j considered’ opinion, the executives should have a free hand<\/p>\n
 Ito proceed “with investigation further into the matter to do<\/p>\n
 conferred by law and by people, particularly<\/p>\n
  faced with money-power and manpower.\n<\/p>\n
 = mctherwise, the respect for law and people would be lost.<\/p>\n
Wit;\n<\/p>\n
wk} 3′ .’..\n<\/p>\n
14<\/span><\/p>\n
6. 7) According to the respondents, the petitioner has
\nencroached into the forest area which is outside the leased<\/p>\n
out area. Learned Advocate General invited our attention<\/p>\n
that when the leased out area has been superimposed on <\/p>\n
the satellite map, the encroachment of the forest area” .<\/p>\n
stands clearly established; and that the satellite  ‘T ‘<\/p>\n
obtained from the Karnataka State Remote  <\/p>\n
Application Centre, which is a nodal ageincy , for the Ventire <\/p>\n
State with regard to GPS and remote sensing,, wouId.’prirna’= <\/p>\n
facie show that the petitioner had encroach_ed upon the’<\/p>\n
forest area, outside the leased out .ar’ea whichgis ano_ffen_c’e~  <\/p>\n
by itself and the authorities are dutyiboun.d to prevent such
\nillegal encroachment and mininglulloperations apartfrom
\nseizing the machineries and to ‘-coig\ufb01esccitelii the. same by<\/p>\n
appropriate proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
6.8) :V;Oncelitliere evidence to show that the
\npetitione\ufb01 had ‘encroache,dl’%upon the forest land and
\noperating its activity o”u.tside*–.tthe limits of the leased out<\/p>\n
area, _ -learned fkdvocate. ‘General contends that the<\/p>\n
” 2 ,_ respoiedents have nooption except to initiate criminal action<\/p>\n
  petitioner by \ufb01ling FIR’ and seize the minerals<\/p>\n
 irninedl o_u’tside’  leased out area, which is a forest<\/p>\n
produce,  with the tools, machineries and vehicles<\/p>\n
used*–in the. commission of the offence and also to confiscate<\/p>\n
  “the same in appropriate proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
”  \u20ac;.<_3A)_f5 On the other hand, Mr. Vijagashankar, learned<\/p>\n
l  senior counsel for the petitioner strongly contends that there<\/p>\n
it  an apparent variation between the \ufb01eld sketch enclosed<\/p>\n
NW w.\u00bbm~"' '<\/p>\n
15<\/span><\/p>\n
with the Agreements dated 7.8.1997 and 24.11.2008<\/p>\n
entered between the petitioner and the forest department <\/p>\n
and the satellite imagery relied upon in the Lokayukta”‘-.””‘- 0′<\/p>\n
report, which is the basis for the impugned FIR andf_”the-\u00abi..’_’ \u00bb
\nseizure order dated 3.2.2009 and both do not tally”-withgv. 0′<\/p>\n
each other even to the naked eye and therefore, there his-no <\/p>\n
encroachment at all.\n<\/p>\n
6.10) It is for that reason, the learned Add-{locate Geinejal, <\/p>\n
placing reliance on the averments  in the statemientiof
\nobjections, submits that the appropriateivauthority’would
\nconduct a further investigation in thegmatter’ proceed in
\naccordance with law. The learned  further
\nagrees that while decidingithe ;encroa’.ohVment, after
\ngiving notice  petitioner; and  would be
\nconducted in ipresence of the\u00a7Pe,titioner, “Controller of Mines,<\/p>\n
Indian ‘.M’l:i’.},f,.g_,  the nominee not
\nbelow the ranlc”iivQ,f’  Director by the Director
\nGeneral, xflurveyi of of the above submission,<\/p>\n
the contention of the  senior counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner that the proceedings vitiates for non–compliance of<\/p>\n
  and 62–B”of’the KF Act do not arise, as the<\/p>\n
 ‘;’espondents are ‘yet to complete the investigation.<\/p>\n
06.’! In circrumstances, we hold that the Lokayukta
\nreport at’1_d.Ii’!e3′; satellite sketch relied on in the Lokayukta<\/p>\n
Wreport be the basis for filing the impugned FIR and<\/p>\n
passing the order of seizure dated 3.2.2009. ”<\/p>\n
16<\/span><\/p>\n
7.3. Applying the said ratio, Issue No.1 is answered in the
\npositive. C<\/p>\n
8.}. Issue Noll:\n<\/p>\n
Whether it is proper for this.’Coi:irt\u00ab–Vto_p e’\u00a7\u00e9;er.eji’see._r’V<\/p>\n
the power of judiciai review Articie’  of V”  ”<\/p>\n
the Constitution of Indi_e*~.t.to quash. irstt. <\/p>\n
Information Report dated  it ”\n<\/p>\n
8.2. with regard to the ‘isameit qiievstioh, this Court, by<\/p>\n
order dated 13.4.2009..pessed,….ie”fivrii;ppi\u00e9etiiiieii’*Ve–\u00a7:-e’;3812 of 2009,<\/p>\n
held thus:\n<\/p>\n
“:21. _I\u00a7_\u00a7L-\u00a38-~Ng;;:f.T_ ‘ ”\n<\/p>\n
Whether it  Court to exercise the
\npower under Ar’ticieV_22a6.of\\’the’Constitution of India to
\nquash the First Information” Report dated 3.2.2009?<\/p>\n
V V, .5 C7″. The peter offudiciaz review under Article 226<\/p>\n
V ~,.-(f thei:.Constitution o_ifwIndia is akin to the inherent power
\n  section 482 of the Code of Criminal
\n  settled law that even though such
\ninherent po~iv.e;r.sconferred on the High Court are very wide,<\/p>\n
_ rhthe very pienitude of the power requires great caution in its
\n .t,iViexeer(;ise and the Courts must be very careful to see that its
\n in exercise of such inherent power is based on<\/p>\n
V   sound principles as held by the Apex Court in the case of
\nC ” INDER MOHAN GOSWAMI AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF<\/p>\n
gw\ufb01–N<\/p>\n
e.\u00bb\u00ab~\u00bb- W<\/p>\n
I7<\/p>\n
UTTARANCHAL AND OTHERS reported in (2007)12 SCC<\/p>\n
1, because the inherent powers conferred on this Court has <\/p>\n
to be sparingly exercised (i) to give effect to an order under.’ -V<\/p>\n
the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of process of Court; andM(iiij\u00ab  —  V<\/p>\n
to otherwise secure the ends of justice, but in any event’  in<\/p>\n
to encourage violations of the provisions ofany statugtesiira V’<\/p>\n
force much any conditions of agreement thereunderiw’hich”‘ <\/p>\n
empowers the competent authority to ivtalice approggriatei’<\/p>\n
action against the law breakers those “who iviolate”‘the”  <\/p>\n
conditions of agreement.\n<\/p>\n
7.3) In any’ event,_.i::3uch_ p;j)u:e’rs_”shouyld not be
\nexercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution .–a.n”dA-therefore the
\nCourts should refrain from  pii’maifacie”decision in a
\ncase where theventirlefacts\u00e9i’ incoznplelteiiand hazy, more
\nso, when the  n’of’:been..collected and produced<\/p>\n
before the –Cou_rt.’ <\/p>\n
7:44)  the  the learned Advocate
\nGeneral comes forwa-rdxto substantiate the complaint made<\/p>\n
against the petitiorterv”toT.the illegal mining operation<\/p>\n
” 2 y_carri_ed\u00ab;on__outside  leased out area. Therefore, when the<\/p>\n
evidence yet to-._be collected and produced before the Court<\/p>\n
andghtherrespuorzdents are prepared to substantiate the illegal<\/p>\n
miningl’operationfby the petitioner, it may not be proper for<\/p>\n
V _ this Court to use the inherent power to stifle the legitimate<\/p>\n
  V’prosecution’3 nor to give a prima–facie decision hastily.<\/p>\n
 we are convinced that it may not be proper for this<\/p>\n
  C’o_uri to quash the F.I.R. at this stage.” 1 _,<\/p>\n
;_..,m …. W,”\n<\/p>\n
18<\/span><\/p>\n
8.3. Following the said ratio, Issue No.11 is answered in the<\/p>\n
positive.\n<\/p>\n
9. 1. Issue No.III:\n<\/p>\n
Whether the ‘second respondenthis emp’owe-red, to:
\nseize the machinery, equipnient,_lli’ron_,gore’
\nvehicles belonging to the petitionesffby a’n_–.o’rde.r it
\ndated 3.2.2009, for hayi11.g cofiirnittecii. <\/p>\n
mining operation in the fore’st_area?\n<\/p>\n
9.2. In the similar facts  circttnistafices of the case, while
\nConsidering the very same qi1esti_or1,V  ”  order dated<\/p>\n
13.4.2009 passed i;1*;2}:.%:” V2009, held thus:<\/p>\n
43,1  it A g _
\nWhetheritrieseco.nd’ ‘respondejnt is empowered
\ntoliseize the niia’cnirae_ry’,.equipment, iron ore
\nand iiehicies t)elongi’rig:_l.to the petitioner, by an<\/p>\n
order datedV_i3.\ufb01.2(V309, for having committed<\/p>\n
__.lan.—i’iEegal miningoperation in the forest area?<\/p>\n
 _ _  enacted The Forest (Conservation)<\/p>\n
Act,’ ‘;7~98(v)’iri’,:–order to prevent deforestation which causes<\/p>\n
ecologica!.__'” imbalance and leads to environmental<\/p>\n
_ Hdeterioration. The deforestation causes widespread concern.<\/p>\n
l..fS’ection  of the FC Act imposes the restriction on de~<\/p>\n
_ _lreservation of forest or use of forest land for non–forest<\/p>\n
  purposes and as per the said Section, no State Government
\n (#3<\/p>\n
c<\/p>\n
‘x *3’<\/p>\n
\/ \\3<\/p>\n
19<\/span><\/p>\n
or authority shall make, except with the prior approval of the<\/p>\n
Central Government, any Order directing (i) that the reserved <\/p>\n
forest shall be ceased to be reserved; (ii) that any forest land’   <\/p>\n
or any portion thereof may be used for any man  ‘<\/p>\n
purpose; (iii) that any forest land may be assigned__by._way’\u00bb in<\/p>\n
o lease or otherwise to an rivatew erson or to’-ariy”
\nP y _4 it ‘\\.\n<\/p>\n
authority, corporation, agency or any other:otrg.anii:ation”no’t  <\/p>\n
owned, managed or controlled by State Government, band (iv)<\/p>\n
that any forest land may be cleared of trees  haves’ <\/p>\n
grown naturally.\n<\/p>\n
8.3) A\ufb01er the FC  _ca_me{_ no mining
\nlease\/ licence can be granted in_the’_fcrest~.arearwithout the
\nprior approval oflthe  which is a
\ncondition preced.ent,;:}because  2 ih’e”Fc Act starts
\nwith non–obstante”clails’e vij\u00e9yeif\ufb02ltiotibithstanding anything
\ncontaincaltin   ‘!aw_for’ia’1e.  being in force
\nin a Stbite..__.”. There_fo_re,ino\u00ab.non–fcrest activity can be carried
\non in theiforesti area;’iAexcept:Vliwitl1 the prior approval of the
\nCentral Government,_  means, even the State<\/p>\n
Government cannot carry on any such non~forest activity in<\/p>\n
 -_the”forests.Aarea withoit’t”‘the prior approval of the Central<\/p>\n
 ‘C\u00a7overnrn,ent,  fact that the mining activity amounts to<\/p>\n
i’71.onI:’;’brest4patrpose–‘is beyond doubt.<\/p>\n
   renewal of a lease is really the grant of a<\/p>\n
___V’-fresh lease as held by the Apex Court in DELHI
\n4 ..f1J:1;VELoP.MENT AUTHORITY Vs. DURGA CHAND
\n‘  traverse [AIR 1973 so 2509] and therefore such prior<\/p>\n
   approval of the Central Government in terms of Section 2 of<\/p>\n
21<\/span><\/p>\n
whether the respondents are empowered to suspend the mining<\/p>\n
licence for violation of the conditions of the agreement entereiclgeiinto<\/p>\n
between the petitioner and forest department. In the    u<\/p>\n
it is held thus:\n<\/p>\n
“75. Issue No. II. _  y 1 A<\/p>\n
Whether the fourth respondent   –.\n<\/p>\n
empowered to suspend _mining.. licencej A ‘
\ninvoking condition No.23 of agreement_for–v-I
\nthe alleged violation.\u00bb the ‘Nos.8, l9,’
\n13 and I 8 of the agreer}ieni–_da{ted ?\n<\/p>\n
Parliament e’nacted,”the- l?orest:’*s,(Conservation) Act,
\n1980 in ordertoiiigipreizent deforestation’ V-which causes<\/p>\n
ecological iSinbalance’3′..__ ar1;,\u00bb_\u00a7e.,,,_v leads to,’ environmental<\/p>\n
deterioration. if ‘  .lde}”orestation _ “causes widespread
\nconcem.:’$ection \ufb01le.Vl5ores’t__i(C’onservation) Act, 1980
\nimposes  restrictioniioin .de’reservation of forest or use of
\nforestgelavnd for”non–for-estlpurpsoses. As per Section 2 of the<\/p>\n
–‘ v. e_ Farest1,(Cjoneervation).\u00abAct, no State Government or authority
\n  except with the prior approval of the Central
\n  any: order directing (i) that the reserved forest
\nsltallitie  be reserved; (ii) that any forest land or<\/p>\n
_ anyiportion ~tliereof may be used for any non forest
\n {iii} that any forest land may be assigned by way
\n lease or otherwise to any private person or to any
\nif  i ailthcrity, corporation, agency or any other organization not<\/p>\n
  owned, managed or controlled by State Government, and<\/p>\n
fl?\n<\/p>\n
22<\/span><\/p>\n
{iv} that any forest land may be cleared of trees which have<\/p>\n
grown naturaliy.\n<\/p>\n
7.6) After the Forest {Conservation} Act, 1980 came<\/p>\n
into force, no mining lease\/’ licence can be granted in the  <\/p>\n
forest area without the prior approval of the Central:”‘-:ii”‘ <\/p>\n
Government, which is a condition precedent, because’<\/p>\n
Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act starts u;ith’non~i.l.:”<\/p>\n
obstante clause viz., “Notwithstanding ‘ianytihing  <\/p>\n
contained in any other law for the  ‘in V’ <\/p>\n
in a State.” Therefore, no non~forest*– activity [ca-Li; A be<\/p>\n
carried on in the forest area, except_,_u)~f.th the prior-approizalill  <\/p>\n
of the Central Government, which even’ the State
\nGovernment cannot carry ‘any nonforest actiuityiin
\nthe forest area without the  appiouainviiiofgvthe Central
\nGovernment. The fact that.~thc_mining’aactivitg”‘amounts to<\/p>\n
non–forest purpose’i<;_t\u00a7eyon.d doubt.    = <\/p>\n
    is really the grant of a
\nfresh lease, as held"'.:byVi"the Apex Court in DELHI
\nDEVE\u00a3:QPMENT,AU7:HOR.lTY 'Vs. DURGA CHAND KAUSISH.<\/p>\n
* v. A_ AIRVJx260Q,__therefore such prior approval of the<\/p>\n
:iC'en_tral Government in terms of Section 2 of the Forest<\/p>\n
 ,_(Conserziation}4ViAct,_}I980 would be required when mining<\/p>\n
lease'Vgranteiii'-before the commencement of the said Act is<\/p>\n
renewed .ajter"its coming into force.\n<\/p>\n
it *   The impugned quarry is admittedly located in<\/p>\n
itheforest area. Therefore, the mining lease granted to the<\/p>\n
S  petitioner in such forest area is subject to the conditions<\/p>\n
i it “irnposed by the Central Government and State Government<\/p>\n
23<\/span><\/p>\n
while exercising the power conferred under Section 2 of the<\/p>\n
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. While thus exercising the<\/p>\n
power conferred under Section 2 of the Forest <\/p>\n
(Conservation) Act, an agreement was entered into between,  <\/p>\n
the petitioner and the 4th respondent on 19.4.2007 wherein   <\/p>\n
the petitioner–company have speci\ufb01cally agreed to   <\/p>\n
with the conditions incorporated in the said agreern:entf’~V., r<\/p>\n
Had the agreement not been executed, mining. lease’ its_elf_y   ‘V<\/p>\n
would not have been granted to thei”petit_io”ner. hijrideri . <\/p>\n
Condition No.23 of the said agreement, the petitioner  <\/p>\n
also agreed that the fourth respondent has the_ pozverilto
\nsuspend the mining licence,’ if the,ccn.dition,s agreedto
\nthe petitioner while executing’  agreieinentiiare violated.
\nTherefore, as rightly pointed out   Advocate
\nGeneral, the fourtl_l’re_spondent  empoweredto suspend<\/p>\n
the licence,   _ conditions _Vagreea'”””to by the<\/p>\n
petitioner\/lesseeifyarelifiviolatedt Biibitvivdepends upon the
\nfacts and circumstances each ‘case as to the enforcing<\/p>\n
circumstances. _<\/p>\n
 719}. It is not_vin’dispute that the very area leased out<\/p>\n
-‘ V.  to {petitioner is in dispute and there are civil litigations<\/p>\n
 1_oending..vin.,this”vregard between the petitioner and the<\/p>\n
rn.ini.n’g operators, of which, one of them is<\/p>\n
sewed by.thei.;E-lon’ble Supreme Court, where theg issue to<\/p>\n
‘V survey  respective leased out area is under<\/p>\n
luconsiderat-ion. As a result, the leased out area of the<\/p>\n
petitioner itself is yet to be identified and demarcated. In<\/p>\n
*  that’ ‘view of the matter, the enforceability of condition<\/p>\n
 a ..Nos.8, 9, I3 and 18 referred to in observations 2 and 3 has<\/p>\n
25<\/span><\/p>\n
12) Following the decisions dated 13.4.2009 in Writ Petition
\nNo.3812 of 2009 and 1.4.2009 passed in 60023 of 2009, xye\u00bb..p’ass<\/p>\n
the following:\n<\/p>\n
0 R D E R<\/p>\n
(i) Lokayukta report and the
\nthereto can be the basis for th’e.pre.spoindentis.t.o
\nprosecute the FIR dated\u00ab–.._3.2.2’0.09 pand:””t.]\u00a7;re.v_pp
\nSeizure order dated  it   <\/p>\n
(ii) the prayer to   Information
\nReport dated 3.2.2009   giving
\nliberty to4.:it1<.:..e  2- proceed in<\/p>\n
accordance \u00a7\u00a7iri.f.h.. laW,_ subject' towthe orders<\/p>\n
he-re'un_d"e-r; 2<\/p>\n
(iii) Deputy V _.of Forests, Bellary
\nDivisio_ni,_]3ie11iary::\u00abfoi:rth Respondent, shall
\n‘gin-apecti anti survey the impugned area leased<\/p>\n
 to the ‘petitioner, in the presence of the
\n =.pevtitio_’n.e:r’,-._ the Controller of Mines, Indian
\n o’fiV..Mines, Bangalore, along with the
\n no_rnine~eAlnot below the rank of the Deputy
\nDirector by the Director General, Survey of<\/p>\n
it ..zIndia, and take appropriate decision as to the
\n“alleged encroachment by the petitioner with<\/p>\n
reference to the survey records and other<\/p>\n
(iv)<\/p>\n
26<\/span><\/p>\n
relevant material available and documents
\nproduced in this regard. If any encroachment<\/p>\n
of forest land is found, the respondents are at<\/p>\n
liberty to assess the damages caused o1~;.vi:”‘
\naccount of such illegal mining outside’_-“theiii<\/p>\n
leased out mining area and recover the..sani1ve=_:’<\/p>\n
from the petitioner;\n<\/p>\n
The respondents are directedwto’wreturnf\ufb01\ufb02fle i’<\/p>\n
tools, Vehicles and machinery to  petitivonicriv  <\/p>\n
on the condition that y_the\u00bb,__s’-arpne shall be?
\n‘.’VthE6V ‘3,<\/p>\n
~ ,__ respondents \/
\njurisdictional Magistrate iahd\ufb01rilienv iirequired<\/p>\n
produced befciri\u00e9;\n<\/p>\n
by law, subject tofthe’  ‘the\u00ab,irispection<\/p>\n
to be c_oi1dt\u00a7cted  fourth respondent in<\/p>\n
the hp’: eS.:\u00e9nceVu” the . petitioner and Controller of
\nM,ine*s,’ Indianpiiaulreau of Mines, Bangalore,<\/p>\n
along iwicthi the’=r10m’i~n_eei’i.not below the rank of<\/p>\n
_a_v Deputy’ Dir’ectorVi”by the Director General,<\/p>\n
 ‘igsurvey of In”di.a__,___referred to above;<\/p>\n
it  which is already seized by the
\n‘–._giauti1oj:itiesiV which is alleged to have been<\/p>\n
 miried \u00abioutside the leased out area shall be in<\/p>\n
tlzewcustody of the forest authorities and the<\/p>\n
it \u00ab.,.authorities are at liberty to take appropriate<\/p>\n
“decision in the matter subject to the finding in<\/p>\n
27<\/span><\/p>\n
the inspection and assessment of the damages<\/p>\n
and to recover the same from the petitioner;<\/p>\n
vi) Subject to the \ufb01nding arrived at by the fourth
\nrespondent–Depu_ty Conservator of Forests,”
\nBellary Division, and the Controller of Mi_1jes’,’  ‘
\nIndian Bureau of Mines, Bangalore; peti_tiicner::_f i”
\nshall rectify the violation hy””1″eIr1oVfing_Vif if
\noverburden waste whatsoever
\nweeks from the date of .s1,;_.ch ord_er– passed 1
\nthe fourth respondent an.d\u00b0~the Co-nhtxlollxer  i
\nMines, Indian Bureau Vof..ii:i$\/Einesg Banga.1Ao1je:;\u00a7<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
vii) The respondentsparedirectedi   the<\/p>\n
petitioner  the  operation<\/p>\n
in the .1e’ag:.gd…,_5ut areawhich is not disputed by<\/p>\n
the forest a.uthoritie.sA;’ ~ \u00ab .\n<\/p>\n
12) Writjrpetitionuisdaccordingfy disposed of. No costs.<\/p>\n
sal-<\/p>\n
\nChiei Tustice\n\nSd\ufb02gu\nJudge\n\n =    '.V'fi:'.i't\"*:;>: yEj\u00a7. t.,.Nj' X 1'\n\nifi\u00bb'e.b\"host 2\u00bb Y$,s'\"\/ NO\n\n  V  nk\/,1;in'* \"\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court M\/S. Chowgle And Company vs State Of Karnataka on 24 April, 2009 Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & V.G.Sabhahit IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED Tl’-IIS THE 24TH DAY or APRIL, 2009 PRESENT TI-IE I-ION’BLE MR. 9.1). JJINAKARAN, CHIEF JUSTICE’: ~ AND i i i TI-IE HON’BLE MR.JUs’r1c1: V.G. sA3HA_H1’1f_j V wnrr […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-215821","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S. Chowgle And Company vs State Of Karnataka on 24 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-chowgle-and-company-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-24-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S. Chowgle And Company vs State Of Karnataka on 24 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-chowgle-and-company-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-24-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-20T09:00:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-chowgle-and-company-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-24-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-chowgle-and-company-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-24-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S. Chowgle And Company vs State Of Karnataka on 24 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-20T09:00:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-chowgle-and-company-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-24-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":4752,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-chowgle-and-company-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-24-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-chowgle-and-company-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-24-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-chowgle-and-company-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-24-april-2009\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Chowgle And Company vs State Of Karnataka on 24 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-20T09:00:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-chowgle-and-company-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-24-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-chowgle-and-company-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-24-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-chowgle-and-company-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-24-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Chowgle And Company vs State Of Karnataka on 24 April, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S. Chowgle And Company vs State Of Karnataka on 24 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-chowgle-and-company-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-24-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S. Chowgle And Company vs State Of Karnataka on 24 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-chowgle-and-company-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-24-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-20T09:00:07+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-chowgle-and-company-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-24-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-chowgle-and-company-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-24-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S. Chowgle And Company vs State Of Karnataka on 24 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-20T09:00:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-chowgle-and-company-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-24-april-2009"},"wordCount":4752,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-chowgle-and-company-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-24-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-chowgle-and-company-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-24-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-chowgle-and-company-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-24-april-2009","name":"M\/S. Chowgle And Company vs State Of Karnataka on 24 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-20T09:00:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-chowgle-and-company-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-24-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-chowgle-and-company-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-24-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-chowgle-and-company-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-24-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S. Chowgle And Company vs State Of Karnataka on 24 April, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/215821","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=215821"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/215821\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=215821"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=215821"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=215821"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}