Allowed

Devappa S/O. Ningappa Amatur v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Sept 2013WP/79172/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged orders regarding the forfeiture of sugarcane and the dismissal of an appeal on grounds of delay. The Single Judge held that no hearing was provided before dismissal and allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter for reconsideration after affording an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 05.03.2010 is set aside and the matter is remanded to respondent No. 1 for reconsideration after providing an opportunity of hearing.

Devappa S/O. Ningappa Amatur Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.N.NAGAMOHAN DAS

¶6

WRIT PETITION No. 79172/2013 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

Sri. DEVAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA AMATUR AGE 45 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O. MUTNAL TQ. & DIST. BELGAUM. … PETITIONER

¶9

(BY Sri. JAGADISH PATIL, ADV.)

¶10

AND :

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND REVISIONAL AUTHORITY DEPT. OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE.

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELGAUM DIST. BELGAUM.

¶13

: 2 :

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BELGAUM DIST. BELGAUM. … RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY Sri. A G MALDAR, HCGP)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.07.1995 VIDE ANNEXURE A AND ETC.

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Sri. Maldar, learned Government Pleader is directed to take

¶20

notice for respondents.

¶21

In this writ petition the petitioner has called in question the order dated 14.07.1995 – Annexure A passed by respondent No. 3 and the order dated 05.03.2010 – Annexure D passed by respondent

¶22

No. 1. The order at Annexure A specifies that 10 tonnes of sugarcane was forfeited. Against the impugned order at Annexure A petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner –

¶23

: 3 :

¶24

respondent No.2 herein. Respondent No. 2 returned the appeal stating that the petitioner has to file the appeal before the concerned Minister. The concerned Minister transferred the appeal filed by the petitioner to the Principal Secretary of Government of Karnataka and the Revisional Authority, Department of Food and Civil Supplies and consumer affairs – respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 passed the impugned order dated 05.03.2010 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner only on the ground that no separate application is filed for condonation of delay and also for non-prosecution. Hence, this writ petition.

¶25

A perusal of the impugned order at Annexure D passed by respondent No. 1 specifies that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner. The appeal is dismissed mainly on the ground of delay. In the circumstances I am of the considered opinion that an opportunity is to be provided to the petitioner. Accordingly, the following;

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

i. Writ petition is hereby allowed.

¶28

: 4 :

¶29

ii. The impugned order dated 05.03.2010 – Annexure D passed by respondent No.1 is hereby set aside.

¶30

iii. The matter is remanded to respondent No. 1 for reconsideration in accordance with law after providing an opportunity to the petitioner.

¶31

iv. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file an application to condone the delay in filing the appeal before respondent No. 1.

¶32

Learned Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of

¶33

appearance within 3 weeks.

¶34

SD/JUDGE

¶35

Lrs.

Devappa S/O. Ningappa Amatur v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devappa S/O. Ningappa Amatur v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Veerappa Shankarappa Sajjannav Vs the Dy Commr for Transports Be

Shivappa Muniyappa Pathroti Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Hasanmiya S/O Mahammad Sab Badiger Vs Somayya Karnool

Omkara Reddy S/O. G.S. Gurumurty @ Venkatesh Reddy Vs the Branch Manager

Mallappa Yallappa Hubballi, Vs the Tahashildar

Hasiru Vividhoddesha Souharda Sahakari Niymaita Vs the Cooperative Election Commissioner