PUTTAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS in these writ petitions are seeking for quashing of endorsement dated 6. 5. 2003 issued by the 2nd respondent, the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Hassan indicating that it is not possible to accede to their request for refunding a sum of Rs. 2,27,455/- paid for removing as many as 129 logs of Nandi wood from Sy. No. 67/1 of Moorahalli Village, Harehalli Hobli, Belur Range, Hassan Division. It is mentioned in the Order that the said amount was paid pursuant to the intimation given to the petitioners permitting them to cut and transport certain jungle wood trees and that it was the amount payable in respect of Nandi category of trees which had been reserved in favour of the Government even at the time of grant.

(2.) THE endorsement is only for refusal in respect of the request for refunding this amount pursuant to the application of this nature from the petitioners. The amount due was paid in the year 1996 and the permission granted for removing other jungle wood trees was subjected to this condition. It is for this reason it is indicated that the request cannot be acceded.

(3.) QUASHING of the endorsement at Annexure-B does not in fact automatically result in the second relief that is sought for by the petitioner, namely for a direction directing the respondents to refund this amount with interest. Until and unless the order under which the amount was remitted is challenged and got over in a manner known to law petitioner cannot claim refund. Moreover in respect of an amount paid in the year 1996, refund cannot be ordered in a petition filed in the year 2002. Petition is not only hit by laches but also without any merit, particularly as the consequential relief of refund is not sought as a sequel on quashing of the order under which the amount was paid. In the absence of challenge to the order under which the amount was paid question of granting refund never arises.