Karnataka High Court
Sri K T Ramaswamy vs State Of Karnataka on 14 September, 2022
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.48169 OF 2011 (GM-FOR)
BETWEEN:
SRI.K.T.RAMASWAMY,
S/O K.K.THIMMAIAH GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SAHYADRI SERVICE STATION,
THIIRTHAHALLI:577432,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS L.RS
(VIDE ORDER DATED 21/02/2019 & 09/02/2022)
1. SRI.K.R.GOWTHAM,
S/O LATE K.T.RAMASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT OPP K.E.B. QUARTERS,
SOPPUGUDDE, THIRTHAHALLI,
SHIVAMOGA, KARNATAKA-577432.
2. SRI.K.R.NAVEEN,
S/O LATE K.T.RAMASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT SOPPUGUDDE,
RAGAVENDRA BADAVANE, THIRTHAHALLI,
SHIVAMOGA, KARNATAKA-577432.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.SUYOG HERELE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST,
ENVIRONMENT AND GEOLOGY,
MULTI-STORIED BUILDING,
2
BANGALORE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. TREE AUTHORITY,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT, SHIMOGA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
3. THE CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS,
SHIMOGA CIRCLE, SHIMOGA.
4. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS,
SHIMOGA DIVISION, SHIMOGA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.V.KRISHNA, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 19.7.2011 PASSED BY THE R1, ORDER DATED
28.1.2011 & THE REVISED DEMAND LETTER DATED 28.9.2011
PASSED BY THE R4, VIDE ANN-A, B & C & ALL FURTHER
PROCEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Petitioners are knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the orders dated 19.07.2011 passed by the first respondent and two orders dated 23.01.2011 & 28.09.2011 issued by the 4th respondent respectively at Annexures-A, B & C. The net effect of these orders is rescinding of earlier orders on the ground that they were wrongly structured and as a consequence, petitioners are now called upon to pay higher sums of money.
3
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners finds fault with the impugned orders contending that they have been made unilaterally in the sense, without giving any opportunity of hearing to his clients and further that there was absolutely no justification whatsoever for dispensing with an opportunity of hearing, audi alterem partem being the grand principle of Natural Justice in any civilized jurisdiction.
3. After service of notice, the respondents having entered appearance through the learned AGA, oppose the Writ Petition by filing the Statement of Objections on 9.7.2013. Learned AGA makes submission in justification of the impugned orders contending that if apparently, there is a mistake in the earlier orders, there is no reason for leaving the same to continue and therefore, the officials have rectified the earlier orders by issuing the fresh orders. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this court is 4 inclined to grant a limited indulgence in the matter as under
inasmuch as the impugned orders have civil consequences in the sense that citizens have to shell out more money than before and therefore, the same could not have been made without giving an opportunity of hearing to them, the principles of natural justice being part of Article 14 of our Constitution vide Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
5. Though several other contentions have been urged by both the sides in support of their respective stand, they do not merit consideration at the hands of this court inasmuch as the entire matter is being remanded to the jurisdictional authorities for taking a fresh decision after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the stakeholders, in the fitness of things.
In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition succeeds in part; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned orders and the matter is remitted to the portals of the 4th respondent for consideration afresh, in 5 accordance with law, and after giving an opportunity of representation to the petitioners. All contentions are kept open; costs are made easy.
Sd/-
JUDGE cbc