Partly allowed

Smt. M D Tilakavathy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Jan 2022WP/2960/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a preliminary hearing under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the High Court of Karnataka directed the Secretary, Department of Tourism to consider the petitioner's application for river rafting permission within eight weeks, failing which heavy costs would be imposed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No. 2 to consider the petitioner's application for river rafting permission within eight weeks and inform the result within one week.

Smt. M D Tilakavathy Vs the State of Karnataka — Environment and Pollution | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.2960 OF 2020(GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. M D TILAKAVATHY, W/O DAMODAR M D, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.152, RANGASAMUDRA VILLAGE AND POST, SOMAWARPET, RANGASAMUDRA TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 234.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶13

THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM, VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶14

THE DIRECTOR, PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, KARWAR, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT – 581 301.

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONR AND CHAIRMAN, THE RIVER RAFTING MONITARING AND SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE, KODAGU DISTRICT, MADIKERI – 571 201.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SOMAWARPET TALUK, SOMAWARPET, KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 236.

¶17

¶18

THE TAHSILDAR, SOMAWARPET TALUK, SOMAWARPET, KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 236.

¶19

NANJARAYAPATTANA, VILLAGE PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, NANJARAYAPATTANA, KUSHALANAGARA HOBLI, SOMAWARPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 236.

¶20

… RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. B V KRISHNA, AGA FOR R1-R6; R7 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R4 TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER TO RUN THE RAFTING ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE PETITIONER IN CAUVERY RIVER AT DUBARE OF SOMWARPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT AND PERMIT HER TO CONDUCT THE RIVER RAFTING IN THE DUBARE AREA OF KAVERY RIVER AS PER ANNEXURE-A DATED 27.6.2012.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The short grievance of the petitioner is as to nonconsideration of her application dated 21.06.2012 for the grant of permission to conduct river rafting in Dubare Area of Kaveri River; a copy of representation is at Annexure-A.

¶26

After service of notice the official respondents having entered appearance through the learned AGA oppose the writ petition contending that the rivers belong to none and therefore, they belong to all; that being the position, individual rights cannot be sought for in respect

¶27

¶28

of the user of rivers; having so contended, now he agrees with the suggestion of this Court that his clients should look into the application of the petitioner in accordance with law and in a time bound way. This is fair enough.

¶29

In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed off directing respondent No.2 to consider petitioner’s subject application in accordance with law and within a period of eight weeks and further inform result of such consideration to the petitioner within next one week following, failing which, heavy costs may be imposed on the erring officials.

¶30

All contentions are kept open.

¶31

It is open to the answering respondent to solicit any information/documents from the side of the petitioner as required for due consideration of the said application subject to the rider that in the guise of such solicitation, delay shall not be brooked.

¶32

Now, no costs.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

Bsv

Smt. M D Tilakavathy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. M D Tilakavathy 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

K P Patrick Lawrernce Vs the District Registrar

Sri M N Rakesh @ Ravi Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited

S R Arokiaraj Vs Mrs Anthony Rita

Sri Anthony Raj a Vs Equitas Small Finance Bank

Sri M C Hombalaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri P R Chandra Reddy Vs State of Karnataka