Allowed

Naveed Ahmeed v. Range Forest Officer and Surveyor

Karnataka HC1 Aug 2024WP/3112/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in Writ Petition 3112 of 2024 directed the competent authority to release the petitioner's seized lorry without insisting on a bank guarantee, provided furnishing of an indemnity bond with one surety and proof of ownership.

What did the court decide?

Direction to release the lorry upon furnishing an indemnity bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with one surety and proof of ownership, without insisting on a bank guarantee.

Naveed Ahmeed Vs Range Forest Officer and… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:30868 WP No. 3112 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 3112 OF 2024 (GM-FOR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

NAVEED AHMEED, S/O ABDUL MAJID, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.1859, MUS PHIRA KHANA, HUSNSUR, MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 105.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. LETHIF B., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

RANGE FOREST OFFICER AND SURVEYOR, PIRIYAPATTANA DIVISION, MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 105.

¶13

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND DEPUTY CONSERVATORS OF FOREST, HUNSUR DIVISION, HUNSUR, MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 105.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI.RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA)

¶17

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 05.08.2023 ISSUED BY THE R2 IN 71(A) FOC NO.11/2022-2023 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE - A TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.,

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC:30868 WP No. 3112 of 2024

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The lorry belonging to the petitioner was seized in FOC No. 11/2022-23 for offences punishable under Sections 32(2), 62, and 71(A) of the Karnataka Forest Act, and under Rules 25, 144, and 165 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, and Sections 379 and 447 read with Section 34 of the IPC, alleging unauthorized transportation of pieces of Acacia tree in the said lorry by entering into the forest land.

¶24

The petitioner, claiming to be the owner of the lorry, filed an application for the release of the vehicle under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. before Respondent No. 2. The said application was rejected by Respondent No. 2. Hence, this petition.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA for the respondent-State.

¶26

The subject matter of this petition is substantially covered by the order in W.P. No. 15974/2021, disposed of on 07.09.2021, with the following observations at para-2 and thereafter:

¶27

“The subject matter of this Writ Petition is substantially covered by the judgment in W.P. No. 15974/2021 (GM-FOR), disposed of by this court on 07.09.2021 (vide Annexure-C) with the following observations at para 2 and thereafter:

¶28

“In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing Respondent No. 2 to consider the petitioner’s subject application without insisting on the furnishing of a bank guarantee. However, requiring surety is not dispensed with. All contentions are kept open.”

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:30868 WP No. 3112 of 2024

¶30

2. The Division Bench of this Court in A.V. Vinoda supra has held that the Court should treat like cases alike and if relief is granted to a litigant, similar relief cannot be denied to other similarly circumstanced litigants as well, there being no derogatory circumstances.

¶31

In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition succeeds; a direction is issued to the second respondent to consider the petitioner’s application without insisting on the furnishing of a bank guarantee, however requiring appropriate suret. All other contentions are kept open.”

¶32

In light of the order issued above, Respondent No. 2 is hereby directed to release the lorry, Ashok Leyland, bearing registration No. KA 12 B 6662, subject to the petitioner furnishing an indemnity bond for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with one surety for the like sum, without insisting on a bank guarantee, and subject to the petitioner producing proof of ownership of the vehicle.

¶33

Upon satisfaction of the said conditions, Respondent No. 2 shall release the subject vehicle forthwith.

¶34

Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶35

Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶36

RKA

Naveed Ahmeed v. Range Forest Officer and Surveyor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naveed Ahmeed v. Range Forest Officer and Surveyor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Nayaz Pasha, Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Durga Facility Management Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Government Emarketplace

Sri. Mahanthesh J Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs. Bhajantri Henrica Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Himagiri Sree Electricals Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Mahesh P B Vs Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd.