Allowed

Kenchegowda v. the Upa Lokayukta

Karnataka HC21 Oct 2024WP/4273/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Upa Lokayukta reported under Section 12(1) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act recommending recovery of Rs.1,50,000 as value of trees allegedly felled by the petitioner, followed by a final notice. The court quashed both for violation of natural justice, no notice having been issued, with liberty to act afresh in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Report dated 26.09.2016 (Annexure-B) and final notice dated 17.01.2022 (Annexure-F) quashed; liberty reserved to authorities to take action in accordance with law; contentions kept open.

Kenchegowda Vs the Upa Lokayukta — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:42137-DB WP No. 4273 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024 PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 4273 OF 2022 (GM-KLA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

KENCHEGOWDA S/O GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT GANGAVARA CHOWDAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562129.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.SHIVAPRASAD E., ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE UPA LOKAYUKTA GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA M S BUILDING B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶14

THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER DEVANAHALLI RANGE DEVANAHALLI-562129.

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR DEVANAHALLI TALUK DEVANAHALLI-562 129.

¶16

VENKATESHAPPA S/O SOMAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:42137-DB WP No. 4273 of 2022

¶19

R/AT GANGAVARA CHOWDAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562129.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.VENKATESH S ARABATTI, ADV. FOR R1 (VC) SRI BHOJEGOWDA T KOLLER, AGA FOR R2 & R3 RESPONDENT 4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶22

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE UPA-LOKAYUKTA/BIDI/2700/2014/SANIKAASA-2 DATED 26.09.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-B QUASH THE FINAL NOTICE ISSUED BY THE TAHASILDAR, DEVANAHALLI TALUK DATED 17.01.2022 BEARING NO.FIR.CR.07/2018-19 VIDE ANNEXURE-D INTERIM PRAYER PRAYS TO STAY THE OPERATION OF THE ORDER PASSED BY KARNATAKA UPA-LOKAYUKTHA IN CASE NO COMPLETE/UPA-LOKAYUKTA/BIDI/2700/2014/SANIKAASA-2 DATED 26.09.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-B ALSO IN FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 17.01.2022 BY THE TAHASILDAR, DEVANAHALLI, VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶25

AND

¶26

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

¶29

Petitioner, resident of Chowdappanahalli Village,

¶30

Channarayapatna Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru

¶31

Rural District is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash Annexure-B, report

¶32

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:42137-DB WP No. 4273 of 2022

¶33

submitted by respondent No.1 under Section 12(1) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short, ‘1984 Act’) recommending to the concerned Deputy Commissioner to take action to recover a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- being the value of trees said to have been cut illegally by the petitioner and also to quash final notice dated 17.01.2022 (Annexure-F) issued in pursuance to report submitted under Section 12(1) of 1984 Act.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel Sri.Shivaprasad.E., for petitioner, learned counsel Sri.Venkatesh S. Arabatti for respondent No.1 through video conference, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.Bhojegowda T. Koller for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the writ petition papers.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on a complaint by respondent No.4 against respondent No.2 alleging failure to take action against petitioner for illegal felling of 60 Eucalyptus trees worth Rs.1,50,000/-, the first respondent under Annexure-B

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:42137-DB WP No. 4273 of 2022

¶38

dated 26.09.2016 submitted report under Section 12(1) of 1984 Act, recommended the following:

¶39

“7) F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è UÀAUÀªÁgï ZËqÀ¥Àà£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ PÉAZÉÃUËqÀ vÀAzÉ UÉÆÃ«AzÀ¥Àà EªÀgÀÄ EzÉÃ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA: 131/5 gÀ d«ÄÃ¤£À ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è EgÀÄªÀ 60 ¸ÀPÁðj ¤Ã®Vj ªÀÄgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß CPÀæªÀÄªÁV PÀmÁªÀÅ ªÀiÁr ¸ÁV¹zÀÄÝ PÀAqÀÄ§A¢gÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ F ¤Ã®Vj ªÀÄgÀUÀ¼À CAzÁdÄ ªÉÆvÀÛ zÀÆj£À°è w½¹zÀAvÉ 1,50,000/- gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ²æÃ.PÉAZÉÃUËqÀ vÀAzÉ UÉÆÃ«AzÀ¥Àà gÀªÀjAzÀ ªÀ¸ÀÆ° ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ¨sÀgÀt ªÀiÁrPÉÆ¼ÀîªÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAd¸ÀªÉAzÀÄ ¸ÀPÀëªÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀPÉÌ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ PÁ¬ÄzÉ 1984 PÀ®A 12(1) gÀrAiÀÄ°è ¤zÉÃð²¸ÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ CUÀvÀåªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ ªÀiÁ£Àå f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ vÀÄªÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ EªÀjUÉ F §UÉÎ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉÆ¼ÀÄîªÀAvÉ DzÉÃ²¸ÀÄªÀ C¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ PÁ¬ÄzÉ 1984 PÀ®A 12(1) gÀ°è UËgÀªÁ¤évÀ G¥À¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ ºÉÆA¢zÁÝgÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ PÁ¬ÄzÉ 1984 PÀ®A 12(1) gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¸ÀPÀëªÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀÅ, F ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É K£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉÆArzÉ CxÀªÁ K£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉÆ¼Àî¯ÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ JA§ÄzÀgÀ §UÉÎ F ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:42137-DB WP No. 4273 of 2022

¶42

¹éÃPÀj¹zÀ MAzÀÄ wAUÀ¼ÉÆ¼ÀUÉ F ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀPÉÌ w½¸À®Ä ºÉÃ½zÉ. ”

¶43

In terms of the above recommendation, the concerned Deputy Commissioner directed the third respondent – Thahasildar to initiate action to recover a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- being the value of trees illegally felled by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner had no notice of the proceedings before the first respondent, before submitting report under Section 12(1) of 1984 Act as well as before the Deputy Commissioner while directing the third respondent – Thahasildar to recover a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the petitioner. Learned counsel would submit that first respondent could not have given a finding that the petitioner has illegally felled 60 trees worth Rs.1,50,000/and could not have directed the Government/Deputy Commissioner to recover the said amount from the petitioner, without affording any opportunity to the petitioner. Learned counsel would

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:42137-DB WP No. 4273 of 2022

¶45

further submit that any finding against a person without affording opportunity would be violataive of principles of natural justice. It is also submitted that no action against the petitioner could be initiated under the provisions of 1984 Act, since he is not a Government servant or public servant. Thus, learned counsel would pray for allowing the writ petition.

¶46

Per contra, learned counsel Sri.Venkatesh S.

¶47

Arabatti for respondent No.1 would submit that the recommendation made by the first respondent in its report dated 26.09.2016 submitted under Section 12(1) of 1984 Act is only recommendatory and it is for the Deputy Commissioner or Thahasildar to take action in accordance with law. Learned counsel would further submit that if at all this Court comes to the conclusion that such a finding could not have been recorded by the first respondent, he submits that, it may be read down to the effect that it is only a recommendation and to direct the authorities to

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:42137-DB WP No. 4273 of 2022

¶50

provide an opportunity to the petitioner. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶51

Learned Additional Government Advocate

¶52

Sri.Bhojegowda T. Koller for respondent Nos.2 and 3 also supports the submission of the learned counsel for respondent No.1.

¶53

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

¶54

the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, we are of the considered view that action of the first respondent in submitting report at Annexure-B dated 26.09.2016 under Section 12(1) of 1984 Act is in total violation of principles of natural justice for the following reasons:

¶55

Whether the action could have been initiated

¶56

against the petitioner under 1984 Act need not be gone into, in the present case. But, while submitting report under Section 12(1) of 1984 Act, the first respondent could not have recorded a definite finding that petitioner

¶57

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:42137-DB WP No. 4273 of 2022

¶58

has illegally felled 60 Eucalyptus trees worth Rs.1,50,000/and could not have directed the authorities to recover the said amount by initiating appropriate proceedings without affording any opportunity to the petitioner. The said finding is unilateral and one sided.

¶59

Admittedly, no notice whatsoever is issued to the petitioner. Petitioner had no opportunity for having his say in the matter. In that view of the matter, the report under Section 12(1) of 1984 Act and the consequential final notice requires to be quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the first respondent to take action in accordance with law. Hence, we pass the following:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

i) Writ petition is allowed.

¶62

ii) The report under Section 12(1) of 1984 Act bearing No.PÀA¥ÉèAmï \ G¥À¯ÉÆÃPï \

¶63

¶64

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:42137-DB WP No. 4273 of 2022

¶65

notice bearing No.J¥sï.N.Dgï.¹.Dgï:07\2018-

¶66

19 dated 17.01.2022 (Annexure-F) are quashed, reserving liberty to the authorities to take action in accordance with law.

¶67

iii) All contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶68

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶69

Sd/(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE

¶70

NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

Kenchegowda v. the Upa Lokayukta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kenchegowda v. the Upa Lokayukta

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

Sri.H.S.Ramakrishna Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Rukmini v Vs State of Karnataka

B K Kumar Vs the Secretary

Sri. M a Nagaraju Vs State of Karnataka by

Dr. B.R. Harish, K.A.S. (Jr. Gr) Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Ramaswamy, Vs Mr. H. Honnappa