STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. K A NEELAVVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises from the Judgment and Order dated 7-9-1994, delivered by a learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 11763/94, whereby the Hon'ble single Judge allowed the Writ Petition and made the rule absolute.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner has alleged in the writ petition that he is the owner in possession of Sy. No. 143 of Cherala Sri Mangala Village of Somwarpet Taluk, of Kodagu District. According to the petitioner's case, the petitioner made an application under Section 8 of the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976. The petitioner has annexed that application alleged to have been made on 9-12-92, along with the required documents. Petitioner's further case is that more than one year passed, but the application was not considered and no orders had been passed by the concerned officers and according to the petitioner as no orders were passed within a period of one year from the date of the application, the permission to cut the trees shall be deemed to have been granted under the provisions of Section 8 of the Act. The petitioner further averred that on the basis of deemed permission, petitioner engaged workers for cutting of the timber and also started felling operations. According to the petitioner, by the time petition had been filed, 25 per cent. of the trees have already been felled. The petitioner's further case is that he has approached respondent No. 2 in the writ petition namely the Deputy Conservator of Forests, for issuance of necessary Mafi Passes and he was informed latter on that no felling order or Mafi passes could be granted in view of oral instructions of the Chief Minister of Karnataka and so the petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for.-

(3.) THAT the Hon'ble single Judge allowed the writ petition. The Hon'ble single Judge has taken the view that in view of Section 8 (4) (ii) of the Act, if the order contemplated under Section 8 (4) (ii) was not passed within the period fixed under Section 8 (4), the permission is to be deemed to have been granted whether the application made by the petitioner is defective or not and in that view of the matter, the respondents have got to issue the passes for transporting the trees cut by the petitioner, on the basis that the petitioner has the benefit of deemed provision.