Karnataka High Court
Mrs Suguna vs State Of Karnataka on 6 August, 2018
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B. Veerappa
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
WRIT PETITION Nos.31516-31526 OF 2018 (LB BMP)
BETWEEN:
1. Mrs.Suguna,
W/o M.Perumal Reddy,
Aged 52 years
Residing at No.62, 11th Cross,
Muneshwara Block,
Laggere, Bangalore-560 058.
2. Mr.Srinivas,
S/o Huchegowda,
Aged about 38 years,
Residing at No.62, 11th Cross,
Muneshwara Block,
Laggere, Bangalore-560 058.
3. Mr.Yogesh,
S/o Revanna,
Aged about 30 years,
Residing at No.62, 11th Cross,
Muneshwara Block,
Laggere, Bangalore-560 058.
4. Mr.Ramesh,
S/o Rajanna,
Aged about 48 years
Residing at No.61, 11th Cross,
Muneshwara Block, Laggere, Bangalore-560 058.
2
5. Mr.Sridhra,
S/o Narayan Rao,
Aged about 49 years
Residing at No.63, 11th Cross,
Muneshwara Block,
Laggere, Bangalore-560 058.
6. Mr D.Babu,
S/o Danpal Naidu,
Aged about 49 years
Residing at No.197, 4th Cross,
F.F.Layout, Laggere,
Bangalore-560 058.
7. Mr.Ramachandra,
S/o Munniappa,
Aged about 50 years,
Residing at No184, 4th Cross,
FF Layout, Laggere,
Bangalore-560 058.
8. Mr.A.M.Jagadeesh,
S/o Mariyanna,
Aged about 49 years,
Residing at No.311/A, 17th Main,
F.F.Layout, Laggere,
Bangalore-560 058.
9. Mr.A.Raju,
S/o Anjanapa,
Aged 38 years,
Residing at No.654, 1st Cross,
Munshwara Block,
Laggere, Bangalore-560 038
10. Mr.Sunil Kumar,
S/o Ramanna,
Aged about 38 years,
3
Residing at No.46, 2nd Cross,
F.F.Layout, Laggere,
Bangalore-560 058.
11. Mr.Prabhakar,
S/o Chenai,
Aged about 49 years,
Residing at No.324, 10th Cross,
Muneshawara Block,
Laggere, Bangalore-560 058.
... Petitioners
(By Sri Shiva Srinivasan, Advocate for
Sri Diwakar K, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Represented by Deputy Conservator of Forest,
Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP),
NR Square, Annexe Building-3,
Bangalore-560 001.
2. Divisional Forest Officer,
Rajarajeshwarinagar Division,
Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP),
Bangalore-560 001.
3. Mr.K.H. Ramakrishna,
Aged Major,
Residing at No.474, 11th Cross,
Muneshawara Block,
Laggere, Bangalore-560 058.
... Respondents
(By Smt.Prathima Honnapura, AGA for R1
Sri K N Puttegowda, Advocate for R2)
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue direction
4
to the respondents to quash the grand for permission dated
16.07.2018 (Annexure-B) issued by respondent No.1.
These Petitions coming on for Orders this day, the
Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioners have filed the present writ petitions to quash the grant of permission dated 16.07.2018 by Tree Officer and Deputy Conservator of Forest for removal of two Coconut Trees situated in front of No.474, 2nd main Road, 11th Cross, Muneshwara Block, Laggere.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are residents of Laggere, Bangalore and keenly aware of the environment and fragile eco-system of the Bangalore City's now steadily diminishing green cover as well as the cascading repercussions of the felling of trees has on the quality of life of the Bengaluru City's residents. In front of residence of petitioner No.1, there are two mature and healthy coconut palm trees facing the road from the last 20 years. The petitioners are residents of said area. Respondent No.3 was unhappy with the existence of 5 coconut palm trees and expressed his desire to cut the said trees. The petitioners collectively spoke to respondent No.3, who proceeded to complain that the birds sitting on the said tree were dirtying his car bonnet and windshield and that he do not want to clean his car on regular basis. Therefore, he lodged a complaint. On the basis of the said complaint, respondent No.2-Tree Officer has granted permission to cut the trees by letter dated 16.07.2018. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
4. Sri.Shiva Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 2-Tree Officer granting permission to cut and remove trees is erroneous and it will effect on environment and petitioners have sentimental attachment with these two trees and cannot cut and remove the trees. He would further contend 6 that from last 20 years trees are existing and has not caused any damage to any human being. Therefore, it cannot be permitted to cut and remove the trees. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petitions.
4. Per contra, Sri Puttegowda, learned counsel for respondent No.2 on instructions has contended that the two trees are old trees and there is likelihood of falling on the road and there is also existence of electric lines and it may effect the general public. After spot inspection by the Tree Authorities has come to the conclusion that it may effect the general public at large, therefore, permission was granted to cut and remove the trees. He further submits that petitioners are neither owners nor they have any concern with the trees. Virtually, trees are on the public road/Footpath. The very petitions are filed by the petitioners before this Court are not maintainable. These petitions are filed in the form of public interest. Therefore, this Court cannot grant any relief to the petitioners under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India. He also 7 contended, if petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the Tree Officer, they can file appeal before the Appellate authority.
5. Smt. Prathima Honnapura, learned AGA contended that if the trees are old, it is a threat to a general public life day today and concerned authorities have conducted the spot inspection and have opined to remove the said trees in the interest of general public at large and the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the order passed by the Tree Officer. If the petitioners are fighting for public spirit, they have to file PIL before the Division Bench of this Court. Present writ petitions are not maintainable and the respondent 2 is not a proper party. Admittedly, the Tree officer who passed the order is not made as party to the proceedings. Therefore, learned AGA submits that writ petitions are liable to be dismissed for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. 8
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, on careful perusal of records, clearly depicts that the petitioners are not claiming any ownership of these two trees situated in front of No.474, 2nd main Road, 11th Cross, Muneshwara Block, Laggere, Bengaluru. Though they are not claiming any right except they are being attached to the trees as stated by learned counsel for the petitioners and admittedly, Deputy Conservator Officer of Forest is not made as party to the proceedings. If the petitioners have any public interest, these petitions are not maintainable in the absence of any right and they have no locus standi to file the present writ petitions against the impugned permission letter dated 16.07.2018 passed by Tree Officer/District Conservator of Forest.
7. The petitioners have not made out any ground to quash the order passed by the Tree Officer. The order passed by the Tree Officer is in the interest of public at large. The petitioners have not made out any ground to 9 interfere with under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India.
8. Learned AGA also pointed out that the concerned officers are not made as parties to the present writ petition. These writ petitions are also liable to be dismissed on the ground of mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and same is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
In view of the above, these writ petitions are dismissed as devoid of any merit.
Sd/-
JUDGE SB