Allowed¶40

Sri Alikunhi v. Deputy Conservator of Forests and Regional Manager

Writ petition under Article 226 – Forest produce transport contract

Karnataka HC22 Jun 2026WP/15620/2022

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Blacklisting without hearing violates civil rights; quashing of final notice cancelling forest wood transport contract; forfeiture of security deposit/EMD Rs.12,000 refunded; FIR against third parties under Section 144 Karnataka Forest Act cannot be attributed to contractor without enquiry; fresh notice and hearing permitted; Article 226; Karnataka HC; KSFIC; natural justice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned final notice dated 21.03.2022 (Annexure-A) quashed; respondent free to initiate fresh proceedings by fresh notice with opportunity of reply and hearing; respondent authority directed to refund EMD of Rs.12,000/- to petitioner. ¶40

Sri Alikunhi Vs Deputy Conservator of Forests and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the final notice dated 21.03.2022 (Annexure-A) cancelling the transport contract, forfeiting the security deposit of Rs.12,000/- and blacklisting the petitioner is sustainable. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

Though Annexure-A was titled a final notice, its concluding part showed that an order had already been passed against the petitioner holding him responsible, forfeiting Rs.12,000/- and blacklisting him.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

Perusal of the notice does not indicate any enquiry having been conducted; it merely alleged that it was the petitioner's responsibility to ensure no forest product was stolen or illegally transported.

¶36

Key takeaways

It is trite law that a decision in the nature of blacklisting adversely affects the civil rights of a person with serious consequence on his existence and cannot be passed lightly without an opportunity of being heard.ratio¶39
Petition allowed; the impugned final notice dated 21.03.2022 at Annexure-A is quashed.ratio¶40
Respondent authority is at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings by issuing a fresh notice; petitioner may submit his reply, and any appropriate order shall be passed only after providing sufficient opportunity of being heard.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 226 — Forest produce transport contract — Petitioner, successful bidder, executed a seven-day contract dated 18.01.2022 with respondent (KSFIC) for transport of forest wood from Surali Tadka Department to Nettana Department — Final notice dated 21.03.2022 (Annexure-A) cancelled the transport work, forfeited security deposit of Rs.12,000/- and blacklisted the petitioner on the basis of an FIR dated 15.02.2022 (Annexure-C1) against third parties (Abdul Razak, Umar Farooq and others) for illegal transport of acacia logs in contravention of Section 144 of the Karnataka Forest Act — Held: no enquiry was conducted; though styled a 'final notice', it recorded an order already passed; blacklisting adversely affects civil rights and cannot be imposed without an opportunity of being heard — Notice quashed; liberty to respondent to issue fresh notice, consider reply and pass orders after hearing — Respondent directed to refund EMD of Rs.12,000/- (M.G.S. Kamal, J.).

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:30841 WP No. 15620 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 15620 OF 2022 (GM-FOR)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI ALIKUNHI S/O ABOOBHAKKAR AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/A GADIPILA NARIMOGARU VILLAGE PUTTUR TALUK DAKSHINA KANANDA-574 202.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SACHIN B S., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND REGIONAL MANAGER KARNATAKA STATE FOREST INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LIMITED, PADIL MANGALURU DAKSHINA KANNADA-575 007. OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL MANAGER KSFIC LTD., PADIL, MANGALURU - 575 007.

¶16

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MURUGESH V CHARATI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE FINAL IMPUGNED NOTICE DTD 21.03.2022 IN SUM/KA.RA.AA.KAI.NI.NI.MUM/TANTHRIKA/NE/NI/314/202122 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-A.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:30841 WP No. 15620 of 2022

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Petitioner who was a successful bidder of a tender process called for by the respondent for transportation of forest wood from Surali Tadka Department to Nettana Department, having entered into a contract dated 18.01.2022 with the respondent which was valid for a period of seven days is before this Court being aggrieved by the final notice dated 21.03.2022 issued by the respondent, cancelling the said transport work and to take steps to forfeit the security deposit amount of Rs.12,000/- in addition, blacklisting the petitioner.

¶24

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner taking this Court through the records submits that in terms of the contract, petitioner was required to transport forest wood from Surali Tadka Department to Nettana Department. However, upon the allegation of certain person, namely Abdul Razak and Umar Farooq, found to have been illegally transporting Acacia wooden logs in contravention of Section 144 of the Karnataka Forest

¶25

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:30841 WP No. 15620 of 2022

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

Act against whom an FIR was registered on 15.02.2022, the respondent-forest department has without there being any connection whatsoever attributed the said illegal act to the petitioner by wrongly invoking clause 4 of the agreement and held him responsible without even conducting any enquiry as to whether the Forest Wood in respect of which the contract was assigned to the petitioner was being illegally transported by the said persons or not. Therefore he submits the final notice and the impugned Final notice at Annexure-A and the impugned order of forfeiture of security deposit of Rs.12,000/- and blacklisting the petitioner is unsustainable. The petitioner had indeed submitted detailed reply which has also not been considered.

¶29

3. In response learned counsel for the respondent submits that in terms of the agreement it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have protected, preserved and safeguarded the forest wood. Petitioner not having discharged his obligation has rightly been dealt with by issuance of the final notice and the impugned order.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:30841 WP No. 15620 of 2022

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

4. Heard and perused the records.

¶34

5. The agreement which had been entered into between

¶35

the petitioner and respondent-forest department on 18.01.2022 was for a period of seven days enabling the petitioner to transport the forest wooden logs. The contents of first information report found in Annexure-C1 dated 15.02.2022 indicate that certain Abdul Razak and Umar Farooq and others were illegally transporting acacia wooden logs. It is this alleged illegal action on the part of said persons has resulted in issuance of a final notice attributing the said illegal act committed by said Umar Farooq and others to the petitioner.

¶36

6. Perusal of the notice also do not indicate any enquiry having been conducted except alleging that it was the responsibility of petitioner to have ensured no forest product was stolen or illegally transported. Though Annexure-A is titled as final notice, the concluding part of the said notice indicate that an order has already been passed against the petitioner holding him responsible for the illegal transportation of wood by said persons, forfeiting sum of Rs.12,000/- and blacklisting the petitioner. Its trite law that a decision in the nature of

¶37

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:30841 WP No. 15620 of 2022

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

blacklisting would adversely affect the civil rights of a person having serious consequence on his existence which cannot be passed lightly without any opportunity of being heard.

¶40

In that view of the matter, petition is allowed , impugned final notice dated 21.03.2022 at Annexure-A is quashed.

¶41

The respondent authority is at liberty to initiate proceedings and if so advised by issuing a fresh notice, petitioner is at liberty to submit his reply, and pass appropriate order only after providing sufficient opportunity of being heard.

¶42

The respondent authority shall refund EMD of Rs.12,000/- to petitioner.

¶43

SD/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶44

SBN

¶45

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48

Sri Alikunhi v. Deputy Conservator of Forests and Regional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Alikunhi v. Deputy Conservator of Forests and Regional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Srinivasa Reddy Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. A.S. Ponnanna Vs the Election Commission of India

Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs Karnataka Information Commission

Sri Shivashankarappa Muramatti Vs the Commissioner

Sri.Narasimha Murthy Vs the Principal Secretary

Hameed Khan v a Vs the State of Karnataka