Disposed

Venkatagiriyappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Dec 2015WP/20188/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of two writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227, which sought to quash notices for initiating investigation. The Court held that since an appeal against the impugned order had been filed and disposed of, the writ petitions were disposed of with liberty to challenge the appellate order.

What did the court decide?

Petitions disposed of with liberty to petitioner to challenge the appellate order, if law permits.

Venkatagiriyappa Vs State of Karnataka — Environment and Pollution | Karnataka HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION Nos.20188-20189 OF 2013 (GM-FOR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Venkatgiriyappa, Aged about 64 years,

¶9

Thimmaiah,

¶10

Aged about 55 years,

¶11

Krishnappa Alias Krishnaiah, Aged about 53 years,

¶12

All are sons of Giriyappa, Resident of Vaderahalli, Kasaba Ramanagara, District Ramanagaram 562 159.

¶13

Smt. Premamma, Wife of Thimmegowda, Aged about 47 yeares, Resident of Vaderahalli, Kasaba Ramanagara, District Ramanagaram 562 159.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(By Shri V.V.Gunjal , Advocate)

¶16

¶17

AND:

¶18

State of Karnataka, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Aranya Bhavan, 18^th Cross, Malleswaram, Bangalore 560 003.

¶19

The Deputy Conservator of Forest, Department of Forest, Ramanagara Sub Division, Ramanagara, Ramanagara Zilla 562 159.

¶20

The Range Forest Officer, Department of Forest, Ramanagara Sub Division, Ramanagara, Ramanagara Jilla 562 159.

¶21

The Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagara, Ramanagara Jilla 562 159.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(By Shri M.I.Arun, Additional Government Advocate)

¶24

¶25

These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash notice issued by respondents 1, 2 and 3;

¶26

i) vide Annexure-G dated 3.12.2012.

¶27

ii) vide Annexure-H notice under Section 99 of Karnataka Forest Act reg. why investigation should not be

¶28

¶29

carried under section 155 of Cr.PC to fourth petitioner issued by the third respondent and etc;

¶30

These Writ Petitions coming on for Orders this day, the court made the following:

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

It is stated that an appeal said to have been filed by the petitioner has been disposed of. In any event, the petitioner

¶33

would now have to challenge the order in appeal, if at all.

¶34

Hence, the present petitions are disposed of with liberty

¶35

to the petitioner to challenge the order passed in the appeal, if

the law so permits.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Venkatagiriyappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkatagiriyappa v. 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

Mrs.Suhaa Parveez Vs M/S. Standard Chartered Bank

Mr. Basavaraj S. Patil Attur Vs the Branch Manager

Sri Ramakrishna Recreation Association (R) Vs the Superintendent of Police

M/S Sree Jayalakshmi Textiles Vs M/S International Asset Reconstruction

M/S Ahmed Timber Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjesh Kumar C Vs State of Karnataka