Narayan and ors. Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Uttara Kannada, Karwar and anr.

Narayan and ors. vs Deputy Commissioner, Uttara Kannada, Karwar and anr.

Disposition Petitions allowed Court Karnataka Decided Feb 15, 2002

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/381062

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/381062
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.
Decided On: Feb 15, 2002
Case Number: Writ Petition Nos. 34368 to 34372 of 2001
Subject: Civil
Disposition: Petitions allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT (14 of 1947) Section 2(k): [H.N. Nagamohan Das, J] Jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunal Management contending that respondents are not its workman and are working as contractual labour - Whether the said plea ipso facto takes away the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal Held, No. The...

Key legal issue: Civil
Outcome / disposition: Petitions allowed
Acts & sections: Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976 - Sections 8 and 8(4); Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Narayan and ors.

Advocate S.R. Hegde Hudlamane, Adv.

Respondent

Deputy Commissioner, Uttara Kannada, Karwar and anr.

Advocate Shashidhar S. Karamadi, High Court Government Pleader

Legal References

Acts: Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976 - Sections 8 and 8(4); Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227
Reported In: AIR2002Kant273; 2002(4)KarLJ382

Excerpt

- industrial disputes act (14 of 1947) section 2(k): [h.n. nagamohan das, j] jurisdiction of industrial tribunal management contending that respondents are not its workman and are working as contractual labour - whether the said plea ipso facto takes away the jurisdiction of the industrial tribunal held, no. the dispute between the parties squarely falls within the definition of industrial tribunal under section 2(k) of the industairl disputes act. the tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the case and by following the law laid down by the apex copurt has rightly held that it is having jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the dispute between the parties. no justifiable ground to interfere with the reasoning of the tribunal. there is no substance and merit in the contention of the management that the tribunal has no jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the dispute between the parties. indian evidence act, 1872 section 116; promissory estoppel ;[h.n. nag mohan das, j] whether applies in labour jurisprudence? held, no. firstly the doctrine of estoppel is not applicable to labour jurisprudence. contention that the workmen are estopped from contending that they are not contrct labourers. the report submitted by a sub-committee will not operate as estoppel on the rights of workmen in question. - the grievance of the petitioners is that notwithstanding the applications having been made more than one and half years back, the second respondent-tree officer has failed to pass any orders on the same and the same has put them to considerable difficulty and hardship inasmuch as the trees are getting ripe and old and are required to be felled immediately as otherwise they may lose the timber value. in such circumstances, petitioners' prayer for mandamus is justified as the second respondent has failed to perform his duty in spite of the applications being pending before him for a considerable length of time......granted by this court for the simple reason that a writ of declaration does not lie for the said purpose in the first instance. secondly, any right that is accrued in favour of the petitioners if it is to be granted, requires an examination of the facts in each case particularly the nature of the land, character of the trees and such other relevant particulars. it is neither the function nor necessary for this court to go into such factual aspects which facts are required to be looked into by the tree officer. moreover, a deemed permission if at all operates as per the provisions of the statute and not because a declaration is given by any court. a declaration in such circumstances will be a superfluous one. it is not appropriate for this court to issue declarations apprising petitioners of the rights under any enactment, particularly while exercising the writ jurisdiction under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india. 6. however, learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that as an alternative relief at least direction can be issued to the second respondent-tree officer to dispose off the applications expeditiously. the second respondent being a statutory functionary under the provisions of the act, is required to perform his duties as per the provisions of the act. it is the fact that the petitioners have filed their applications and the second respondent is required to look into the same and pass appropriate orders either allowing or rejecting the same. in such circumstances, petitioners' prayer for mandamus is justified as the second respondent has failed to perform his duty in spite of the applications being pending before him for a considerable length of time. 7. in the result, a writ of mandamus is issued to the second respondent-tree officer directing the second respondent to pass appropriate orders on the applications filed by the petitioners seeking for certain permission, in accordance with the provisions of the act, relevant rules.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.

1. These petitions are by persons who claim that they own certain extent of private lands where there is certain tree growth and who have applied to the second respondent-Tree Officer for permission to cut and remove those trees under Section 8 of the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short). The applications filed by the petitioners to the Tree Officer are produced as An-nexures-A, B, C, D, E and F. The applications are dated 20-7-2000, 20-7-2000, 20-7-2000, 20-7-2000, 7-7-2000 and 20-7-2000 respectively. The grievance of the petitioners is that notwithstanding the applications having been made more than one and half years back, the second respondent-Tree Officer has failed to pass any orders on the same and the same has put them to considerable difficulty and hardship inasmuch as the trees are getting ripe and old and are required to be felled immediately as otherwise they may lose the timber value.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Hegde Hudlamane submits that the second respondent-Tree Officer is not passing orders on their applications in view of certain circulars that have been issued by the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner, copies of which have been produced as Annexures-G, H, J, K and L to the petition. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction or authority to interfere with the functioning of the Tree Officer and to issue circulars touching upon the functioning of the Tree Officer as an officer under the provisions of the Act and particularly for coming in the way of the Tree Officer passing orders on the applications filed before him.

3. On a perusal of the circulars, it is found that the circulars have been issued by the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner in his capacity as the Deputy Commissioner of the District and for the purpose of taking suitable steps to preserve and protect the tree growth on Government lands and for proper realization of the value of trees which were standing on granted lands. It is in this context, these circulars havebeen issued. It cannot be said that issue of these circulars has in any way either interfered with the functioning of a Tree Officer or has the effect of supplementing the provisions of the Act.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners also urges that the Tree Officer having not passed orders on the applications filed by the petitioners even for a period beyond one year and in view of the provisions of Section 8(4) of the Act, the petitioners are entitled for a declaration to the effect that such applications are deemed to have been granted.

5. A declaration of this nature cannot be granted by this Court for the simple reason that a writ of declaration does not lie for the said purpose in the first instance. Secondly, any right that is accrued in favour of the petitioners if it is to be granted, requires an examination of the facts in each case particularly the nature of the land, character of the trees and such other relevant particulars. It is neither the function nor necessary for this Court to go into such factual aspects which facts are required to be looked into by the Tree Officer. Moreover, a deemed permission if at all operates as per the provisions of the statute and not because a declaration is given by any Court. A declaration in such circumstances will be a superfluous one. It is not appropriate for this Court to issue declarations apprising petitioners of the rights under any enactment, particularly while exercising the writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. However, learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that as an alternative relief at least direction can be issued to the second respondent-Tree Officer to dispose off the applications expeditiously. The second respondent being a statutory functionary under the provisions of the Act, is required to perform his duties as per the provisions of the Act. It is the fact that the petitioners have filed their applications and the second respondent is required to look into the same and pass appropriate orders either allowing or rejecting the same. In such circumstances, petitioners' prayer for mandamus is justified as the second respondent has failed to perform his duty in spite of the applications being pending before him for a considerable length of time.

7. In the result, a writ of mandamus is issued to the second respondent-Tree Officer directing the second respondent to pass appropriate orders on the applications filed by the petitioners seeking for certain permission, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, relevant rules and such other relevant law as is applicable in the circumstances and within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

8. The writ petitions are allowed accordingly.

9. Sri Shashidhar S. Karamadi, learned Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance without four weeks.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 2002 Same Parties Narayan and ors. vs Deputy Commissioner, Uttara Kannada, Karw... Same Subject Civil Same Judge D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. Acts & Sections Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976 - Sections 8 and 8(...

Civil