Disposed

Sri. Raghu H N v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 Mar 2024WP/8494/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Deputy Range Forest Officer challenged before the High Court the Tribunal's refusal to grant ex-parte interim stay of his suspension order pending OA proceedings. Without expressing any opinion on merits, the Court directed the Tribunal to decide Application No.935/2024 within fifteen days after hearing both sides.

What did the court decide?

Tribunal directed to decide Application No.935/2024 within 15 days after affording opportunity to both sides; no interim relief granted.

Sri. Raghu H N Vs State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:12586-DB WP No. 8494 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 8494 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI. RAGHU H.N, S/O NANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, WORKING AS DEPUTY RANGE FOREST , MALLIPATNA SECTION, ARKALGUD RANGE, HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 102.

¶12

Digitally signed by HARIKRISHNA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

RESIDING AT: HYARANE VILLAGE, AGILE POST, ALUR, HASSAN DISTRICT -573 128.

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR.S, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, M.S BUILDING, BENGALURU -560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:12586-DB WP No. 8494 of 2024

¶19

THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, ARANYA BHAVAN, MALLESWARAM 18^TH CROSS, BENGALURU -560 012.

¶20

THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST ARANYA BHAVAN, 1^ST FLOOR, MILK DAIRY CIRLCE, B.M.ROAD, HASSAN DISTRICT -573 201.

¶21

THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER, ARKALGUD RANGE, ARKALGUD, HASSAN DISTRICT -576 118.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. YOGESH D NAIK, AGA FOR R1-R4)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.03.2024 PASSED IN OA No-935/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE KAT BENGALURU TO THE EXTENT FOR NOT CONSIDERING INTERIM PRAYER AND CONSEQUENTLY STAY THE ORDER DATED 27.02.2024 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEARING No-A3/SIBBANDI/SHIPRA/ARKALGUDU/VIVA41/2023-24 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ANNEXURE-A25 TO THE APPLICATION.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, K.SOMASHEKAR, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:12586-DB WP No. 8494 of 2024

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Under this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 12.03.2024 rendered by the Karnataka State Administration Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short 'KSAT') in Application No.935/2024, wherein it is stated that heard the learned counsel for the applicant on the interim prayer of stay of the impugned order under Annexure-A25. Further, the pleadings and the documents produced by the applicant so also considered the oral submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant and the Tribunal opined that it is not a fit case for grant of ex-parte stay dispensing with notice to the respondents as required under Section 24 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, prior notice to the respondents is necessary to adjudicate the proceedings initiated by the applicant against the respondents. However, the interim relief sought for in the said Application No.935/2024 is to the order dated 27.02.2024 passed by respondent No.3 bearing No.A3/Sibbandhi/ShiPra:Arkaldudu:ViVa-41/2023-24 vide Annexure-25.

¶29

Heard Sri Rajashekar.S., learned counsel for the petitioner so also learned AGA for the respondents.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:12586-DB WP No. 8494 of 2024

¶32

In the verifying affidavit, the petitioner, who is working as Deputy Range Forest, Mallipatna Section, Arkalgud Range, Hassan District, has stated that he is well acquainted with the facts of the case, which has been narrated in the material available on record. Further, he has stated in the petition that the impugned order rendered by respondent No.3 is contrary to annexures-A1 to A10 and A14 to A18. These are all the contentious contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this matter for intervention.

¶33

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the action was taken upon receipt of the information, the proceedings came to be initiated against the applicant upon receipt of the information and the order of suspension came to be passed. But the document at annexureA9 which is clearly indicates that respondent No.4 had directed for release of tree in favour of the owner of the property. Apart from that FIR came to be registered by following the procedure known to law. In spite of the same, contrary to Section 124 of the Forest Act, 1963, the impugned order came to be passed by the Competent Authority. However, the Tribunal has not completely delve in detail the material available on record

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:12586-DB WP No. 8494 of 2024

¶35

relating to the facts and failed to pass any interim order as sought for.

¶36

However, the aforesaid proceedings in Application No.935/2024 was listed on 26.03.2024 and on that day, learned AGA took short accommodation to persuade this matter and also response to that proceedings initiated by the applicant therein who is the petitioner herein. It is clear that the proceedings is pending for disposal.

¶37

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is hereby disposed of. Further, the KAST is directed to decided Application No.935/2024, by affording an opportunity to both the sides, within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶38

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Sri. Raghu H N v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Raghu H N v. 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

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri B Raju

Sri C Hanumantha Rao Vs Dr E v Ramana Reddy

H T Jayaramaiah Vs the Chief Secretary

The Union of India Vs Shrei Shibobrata Nandy

Sri K R Hemanthkumar Vs the Karnataka Examinations Authority

Sri Dinesh Karyappa Vs Dr B C Sateesha