Sri N A Sathish Kumar vs State Of Karnataka on 23 June, 2020

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri N A Sathish Kumar vs State Of Karnataka on 23 June, 2020

Bench: Krishna S.Dixit

                              1

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2020

                       BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

       WRIT PETITION NO. 8044 OF 2020 (GM-FOR)
BETWEEN:

SRI N A SATHISH KUMAR,
S/O LATE S.K.ADINARAYANSHETTY,
AGED 49 YEARS,
NO.83, KACHERI MOHALLA,
SIRA TOWN 572137,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
                                       ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIVEK S, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
   BY ITS SECRETARY,
   DEPARTMENT OF FOREST,
   M.S.BUILDING,
   AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
   BANGALORE-560001.

2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER
   AND DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,
   TUMAKURU DIVISION,
   TUMAKURU 572102.

3. RANGE FOREST OFFICER
   SIRA RANGE,
   SIRA 572137
                                    ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE R-2 TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION FILED BY
PETITIONER SEEKING RELEASE OF JCB VEHICLE BEARING
NO.KA06N3241 SEIZED IN CRIM NO.FOC 2/2018-19 UNDER
PF NO.21350/2018 DATED 30.11.2018 TO INTERIM CUSTODY
OF PETITIONER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW WITHIN A
PERIOD OF 4 WEEKS FROM THE DATE OF DISPOSAL OF THE
THIS WRIT PETITION AND ETC.,
                              2


    THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

                          ORDER

Petitioner allegedly being the registered owner of a JCB vehicle bearing No.KA-06-N-3241 is knocking at the doors of Writ Court seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to the answering respondents for considering his application filed u/s.63 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963; he complains that there is unjustifiable delay on the part of the official respondents in taking up the subject application wherein release of the seized vehicle to his custody is sought for.

2. After service of notice, the respondents having entered appearance through the learned AGA oppose the petition making submission in justification of the arguable delay brooked in the matter; the learned AGA now fairly submits that if a reasonable period is prescribed, there will be no difficulty for the respondents in considering petitioner's subject application in accordance with law.

3. It is needless to mention that while considering petitioner's application, the answering respondent shall keep in view the principles laid down by the Apex Court 3 and by this Court vide judgment dated 09.06.2020 in Crl.Petition No.2591/2020 between Smt. Kavitha & others vs. State & others.

In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed off directing the answering respondents to consider and dispose off the subject application of the petitioner in accordance with law within an outer limit of two months; if the time prescription is violated, the answering respondents shall pay a cost of Rs.500/- to the petitioner for the delay of each day till application is disposed off and an intimation thereof is served on the petitioner.

All contentions of the parties are kept open. Now, no costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE Bsv

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court