Dismissed

Manil Aiyappa Seva Samithi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Apr 2021WP/1150/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by an NGO to remove trespasser structures from protected forest area. Court declined to entertain the PIL solely because the petitioner was not a pro bono litigant and their ownership claim was negatived by a lower civil court.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as it was not entertained due to the petitioner not being a pro bono litigant.

Manil Aiyappa Seva Samithi Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.1150 OF 2021 (GM-FOR-PIL)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MANIL AIYAPPA SEVA SAMITHI REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT S.T.VISHWANATH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O THAMMAIAH R/O MAYAMUDI VILLAGE AND POST, PONNAMPET NAD SOUTH KODAGU-571 213 KARNATAKA STATE ... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. M.T.NANAIAH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. PRABHUGOUD B. TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE OF M/S. M.T.NANAIAH ASSOCIATES)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ARANYA BHAVAN MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU 560 003

¶13

THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST ARANYA BHAVAN, MADIKERI KODAGU DISTRICT 571 201

¶14

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST ARANYA BHAVAN, VIRAJAPET KODAGU DISTRICT 571 218

¶15

¶16

THE ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FOREST THITHIMATHI RANGE, THITHIMATHI PONNAMPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT 571 254

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KODAGU DISTRICT, MADIKERI 571 201

¶18

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PANCHAYATHRAJ ENGINEERING SUB-DIVISION PONNAMPET KODAGU DISTRICT 571 216

¶19

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER MAYAMUDI GRAMA PANCHAYATH MAYAMUDI POST, PONNAMPET TALUK SOUTH KODAGU 571 213 … RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR A. PATIL, AGA FOR R1 TO R5; SRI. K. NARENDRA KAMATH, ADV. FOR R6; SRI. PRATEEK H.C., ADV. FOR R7)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE AN ORDER OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 7 TO REMOVE STRUCTURES OF THE TRESPASSER FROM THE DEVARAKADU PROTECTED FOREST AREA WHICH IS RUNNING 61 ACRES 76 CENTS IN SY.NO.11 OF BALAJI VILLAGE, PONNAMPET HOBLI, PRESENT PONNAMPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT AND ETC.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The learned Additional Government Advocate invites our attention to the preliminary objection raised in the statement of objections. The preliminary objection is substantiated by the document produced by the petitioner at Annexure-E. It is the judgment dated 30^th August 2019 in the suit filed by the

¶25

¶26

petitioner i.e. O.S.No.23 of 2011. The judgment shows that the petitioner claimed to be the owner of the property subject matter of this petition. The claim of the petitioner was negatived by the Civil Court.

¶27

Thus, the petitioner cannot be said to be a pro bono litigant. Only on this ground, we decline to entertain this public interest litigation and the same is disposed of. However, the merits of the petition are not dealt with.

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

hkh.

Manil Aiyappa Seva Samithi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manil Aiyappa Seva Samithi 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

Smt. Geetha Misra Vs Union of India

Sri Nanjappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Mahadevaiah Vs Sri Ramesh

Sri v Chandrashekar Vs Mahantesh Bilagi

Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees Association Vs Sri P Ravikumar I a S

Krishna Ramaiah Vs Union of India