Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 501 (KAR)

M. M. Kariappa v. State of Karnataka

2006-06-17

N.K.PATIL

body2006
ORDER N.K. Patil, J.—The Petitioner assailing the correctness of the order dated 6th November, 2002 and 19th/22nd November, 2002 bearing No. RKS/2/CR/28/PARADEENA/99/2000 vide Annexures-A and B on the file of the second Respondent, has presented the instant writ petition. Further, he has sought for a direction, directing the second Respondent to release in favour of Petitioner the logs and firewood prepared and referred to in the orders of second Respondent dated 6th November, 2002 and 19th/22nd November, 2002 vide Annexures-A and B by collecting the value and takes (sic taxes) due thereon without insisting for interest both on the value of trees and fire wood and various takes (sic taxes) but subject to the payment of the value and the takes (sic taxes) payable thereof. 2. The grievance of the Petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, Petitioner is a owner of Coffee Estate comprised in Sy. No. 125 and 129 of Ikola village. The lands are paradeena in tenure. The Coffee Laisen Officer who had visited the Estate of the Petitioner had advised him to fell certain excess trees. Therefore, Petitioner had applied to second Respondent seeking permission to fell certain trees and after obtaining permission, Petitioner fell the permitted trees and converted them into logs and firewood. The second Respondent has issued the impugned demand notice vide Annexure-A as per the order of Government dated 12th December, 1997, wherein, it is directed that, in all cases of felling trees, in unredeemed Coffee Estates in Kodagu District, the logs have to be delivered to the Government depot and the owner of the land is entitled to be paid 50% of the price recoverable from the sale to be held in the Government Depot. The said order also directed that 25% of the soigniamage (sic segniorage) rate should be paid to the owner at the time when he delivers the logs to the Government Depot. The Petitioner sent a communication dated 16th November, 2002 to second Respondent stating that, under the new Government orders, there is no claim for any interest. And hence, the claim for interest be given up. Instead of considering the said communication as per the Government Order dated 12th December, 1997 vide Annexure-C and Government Order dated 2nd November, 1998 vide Annexure-D, the second Respondent insisted that, the Petitioner should pay the interest to the value of the forest produce at 18% per annum. And hence, the claim for interest be given up. Instead of considering the said communication as per the Government Order dated 12th December, 1997 vide Annexure-C and Government Order dated 2nd November, 1998 vide Annexure-D, the second Respondent insisted that, the Petitioner should pay the interest to the value of the forest produce at 18% per annum. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders, referred above, passed by second Respondent vide Annexures-A and B and seeking appropriate directions, referred above, Petitioner felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition. 3. The principal ground urged by Petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, the second Respondent has no authority in law to levy interest on the value of the forest produce as well as on the takes (sic tax) due from the date of issue of taking felling permission. Learned Counsel for Petitioner submitted that, the second Respondent has grossly erred in ignoring the order of the Government vide Annexure E, under which, Petitioner had an option to exercise either to pay the value of the forest produce or transport the same to the Government Depot and there is no reference to pay interest, in case, Petitioner exercises his option to pay the value. It is the case of Petitioner that, second Respondent ought to have noticed that, Petitioner could pay the value only when the logs are accurately measured, value determined and tax due as on that date is levied and not earlier or when there is no determination of the quantity of timber yielded. Further, it is Petitioner's case that, the second Respondent ought to have appreciated that, there is obligation of paying interest to the Petitioner by Government in case Government itself delays payment in respect of Petitioner's share in the value of timber. Therefore, second Respondent ought not to have demanded interest at 18% per annum when the Commercial Banks have reduced the interest at 10%. Therefore, he submitted that, the impugned orders passed by second Respondent vide Annexures-A and B are liable to be set aside and Petitioner is entitled to be declared that, he is not liable to pay any interest. 4. Therefore, he submitted that, the impugned orders passed by second Respondent vide Annexures-A and B are liable to be set aside and Petitioner is entitled to be declared that, he is not liable to pay any interest. 4. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for Respondents, inter alia, contended and substantiated the impugned orders passed by second Respondent stating that, the said orders are passed in accordance with law and the same are in strict compliance of the Government order and no error or illegality as such has been committed by the said authority in passing the impugned orders. He submitted that, Petitioner has not made out any good grounds for interference in the impugned orders passed by competent authority. To substantiate the said submission, he has taken me through the communication sent by Petitioner himself to the second Respondent, which is produced as Annexure R-1 to the statement of objections filed learned Additional Government Advocate. From a careful perusal of the communication dated 17th September, 2002 produced as Annexure R-1 to statement of objections, it can be seen that, the same is an undertaking given by Petitioner himself stating that, he is ready and willing to pay the value of 41 trees which are fell, tax and interest as per the Government Order dated 9th April, 2002 and requested the authority to permit him to transport the logs/firewood from the trees which were fell. However, intentionally and deliberately, Petitioner has suppressed this vital document. Further, he vehemently submitted that, earlier, one more undertaking was given by Petitioner dated 29th September, 2001, which is produced as Annexure R-3 to the statement of objections. In the said undertaking also, Petitioner had stated that, he is ready and willing to pay the segniorage value of a particular kind of tree along with tax. Therefore, the submitted that, Petitioner, knowing fully well, the Government Orders issued from time to time and the undertakings given by him, has gone to the extent of taking a specific ground that, he is not liable to pay interest at 18% on all revenue outstanding over dues to the forest department. Hence, in view of suppression of material facts, that too, after giving undertakings before the authorities, at the time of transportation of the logs/firewood, Petitioner is not justifiable in coming up before this Court and filing the instant writ petition. Hence, in view of suppression of material facts, that too, after giving undertakings before the authorities, at the time of transportation of the logs/firewood, Petitioner is not justifiable in coming up before this Court and filing the instant writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition filed by Petitioner is liable to be rejected at the threshold itself on the ground of suppression of material facts and the undertakings given by Petitioner himself on more than one occasion. 5. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for Petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for Respondents. After careful evaluation of the material available on record, as rightly pointed out by learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for Respondents, it is a fact that, Petitioner himself has given an undertaking by his communication dated 17th September, 2002 vide Annexure R-1 produced along with the statement of objections, wherein, Petitioner has stated in unequivocal terms that, he is ready and willing to pay the value of the trees which are fell along with tax and interest and requested the authority to permit him to transport the same. The relevant portion reads thus: KANNADA 6. Further it is significant to note that, the Respondents, have produced the Government Order dated 23rd September, 1988 bearing No. FFD:278.FAD.78 as Annexure R-4 to the statement of objections filed by them. From the said Government Order, it reveals that, the forest department has revised the rate of penal interest from 12% to 18%. The order states that, sanction is accorded to enhance the penal rate of interest from 12% to 18% on all revenue out standings over due to the forest department. The said order has been issued with the concurrence of the forest department vide Government Order No. LO.HU.FD.1860/KGP dated 16th July, 1988 issued by Under Secretary to Government, Food and Forest Department. The Petitioner, knowing this fact fully well, had given the undertaking during 2002 vide Annexure R-1 referred above. Further, Petitioner has referred the Government Order dated 9th April, 2002 in his undertaking dated 17th September, 2002 vide Annexure R-2 produced along with the statement of objections stating that, he is ready and willing to pay the interest from the date of the Government Order dated 9th April, 2002. Therefore, Petitioner has intentionally and deliberately suppressed these relevant material facts including the Government Orders and undertakings given by Petitioner himself to the forest department. Therefore, Petitioner has intentionally and deliberately suppressed these relevant material facts including the Government Orders and undertakings given by Petitioner himself to the forest department. It is well settled that, whenever parties come before this Court seeking such reliefs, the aggrieved person must come with clean hands and must state the true facts before this Court. In the instant case, Petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands nor has stated the true facts before the Court. Intentionally and deliberately Petitioner has suppressed the vital material facts such as giving undertakings vide Annexures R-1 and R-3 and the relevant Government Orders issued by Government from time to time, particularly the Government dated 23rd September, 1988 produced by Respondents as Annexure R-4 to the statement of objections wherein, it is specifically mentioned that, sanction is accorded enhancing the penalty rate of interest from 12% to 18% on all the revenue outstanding over dues to the forest Department. Petitioner has also intentionally not referred the Government Order dated 9th April, 2002 vide Annexure R-2, produced by Respondents and referred by himself in his undertaking at Annexure R-1. Thereafter, Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition before this Court on 26th November, 2002. The Petitioner was well aware and well within the knowledge of the said Government Orders and the undertakings given by him, as on the date of filing the instant writ petition. The Petitioner being a Coffee planter and an educated person in the field, that too, being a senior citizen aged about 72 years, ought not to have concealed the material facts before this Court. The conduct of the Petitioner in suppressing the material facts is nothing but abuse of the process of Court. 7. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, I am of the considered view that, Petitioner is not entitled to seek any relief at the hands of this Court, by invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction as envisaged under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold itself by imposing exemplary costs. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, taking into consideration the totality of the case on hand, I do not find any good grounds or justification to interfere in the impugned orders passed by the competent authority. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, taking into consideration the totality of the case on hand, I do not find any good grounds or justification to interfere in the impugned orders passed by the competent authority. Hence, the writ petition filed by Petitioner is dismissed with cost of Rs. 03,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only). Petitioner is directed to deposit the said cost of Rs. 03,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) before the second Respondent within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If Petitioner fails to deposit the said amount before the second Respondent, the second Respondent is directed to recover the same from Petitioner in accordance with law.