Partly allowed

Sri H K Sumair v. the Authorized Officer

Karnataka HC19 May 2021WP/3447/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution sought direction to modify a Criminal Appeal order regarding the release of a seized vehicle. The Court directed that the petitioner furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 2,00,000/- reflecting the vehicle's damaged condition.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 28.01.2021 is modified directing the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee for Rs. 2,00,000/-.

Sri H K Sumair Vs the Authorized Officer — Environment and Pollution | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF MAY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 3447/2021 (GM/RES)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SRI H. K. SUMAIR S/O ABDUL KADAR AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/O BAICHANALLI VILLAGE, KUSHALNAGAR – 571 234 KODAGU DISTRICT.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SRINIVASA. V., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER CUM DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST MADIKERI DIVISION MADIKERI – 571 201.

¶12

THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER KUSHALNAGAR RANGE – 571 234.

¶13

... RESPONDENTS

¶14

(By SMT.NAMITHA MAHESH., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH OR RELAX CONDITION NO.2 IMPOSED IN ORDER DATED 28.01.2021 PASSED IN CRL. APPEAL NO. 57/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND

¶16

¶17

SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU AT MADIKERI VIDE ANNEXURE D TO THE WRIT PETITION.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Namitha Mahesh, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶21

The question that falls for consideration in this petition is within a narrow compass. The petitioner has the benefit of interim order dated 28.01.2021 in the Criminal Appeal No.57/2020 on the file of the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri under Section 71-D of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. The petitioner has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the refusal by the authorized officer/Deputy Conservator of Forests, Madikeri Division to release his vehicle, a Toyota Glanza Car bearing registration

¶22

¶23

No.KA-12-MA-7577. This vehicle is seized under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 for the violation of the provisions thereof. The Appellate Court has set aside the order of the Authorized Officer allowing the application filed by the petitioner for interim custody subject to certain conditions, and one of the conditions is that the petitioner shall furnish a self bond for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. The petitioner asserts that this condition is not on the basis of estimated value as contemplated under Section 63 of the aforesaid Act.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner in

¶25

support of the petition submits that the estimated value of the vehicle for the purposes of insurance is in a sum of Rs.4,91,584/-. Presently, the vehicle is damaged; its glass panes including windshield and rear shield are broken and the batteries have been removed. The value of the vehicle is therefore vastly reduced. The Learned

¶26

¶27

counsel for the petitioner submits that the appropriate and just estimate of the valuation would be in a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-.

¶28

Perused the photographs of the vehicle and the estimation of the ID Value as per Annexures-E and F enclosed to the writ petition. The requirement under the provisions of Section 63 of the aforesaid Act is that the vehicle could be released subject to the condition that the bank guarantee is furnished for an estimated value. The estimation contemplated there under has to be appropriate in the given circumstances of the case, and it is seen from the Appellate Court’s order that no reason is offered for the estimation in a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. The estimation offered by the learned counsel for the petitioner can be reasonably accepted.

¶29

Therefore, the petition succeeds and the order dated 28.01.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal

¶30

¶31

No.57/2020 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, is modified, directing the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- payable to the Authorized Officer and such Bank Guarantee shall be kept in force until disposal of the case.

¶32

SD/JUDGE

¶33

AN/-

Sri H K Sumair v. the Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri H K Sumair v. the Authorized Officer

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 Jayamma Vs the Spl. Land Acquisition Officer

Rafeeque Pasha Vs C M Jagadeesh

Mukthiyar Pasha Vs C M Jagadeesh

Prashanth S Vs State of Karnataka

Irfan Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka

H N Kanthraju Vs Sri H N Dinakara Prasad