Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 18596 (KAR)

K S SHIVA SHANKAR v. THE COMMISSIONER

WP/11186/2026 · 2026-06-02

B M Shyam Prasad

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25591 WP No. 11186 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11186 OF 2026 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: K S SHIVA SHANKAR S/O K.S. SRIKANTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 28, 2ND MAIN, MATHURANAGAR, MYSURU, KARNATAKA 570 016. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DHANARAJA M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUTHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, (NOW THE GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY), N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-56001. 2. THE TREE OFFICER DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25591 WP No. 11186 of 2026 FOREST CELL, ANNEX BUILDING 3, N.R SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION AT ANNEXURE -A VIDE ANNEXURE-C DATED 25-2-2025 TO RECONSIDER/REVIEW THE ORDER OF CANCELLATION OF VIDE ANNEXURE-C DATED 08.12.2022 PERMISSION TO REMOVE THE AFFECTING TREE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner is permitted vide the Order dated 10.01.2022 to cut a full-grown tree in his property. This permission is accorded under the provisions of the Karnataka Tree Preservation and Protection Act, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25591 WP No. 11186 of 2026 1976, but this permission is recalled by the impugned order dated 08.12.2022 in exercise of power purportedly conferred under the aforesaid Act. Sri Dhanaraja M, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Pawan Kumar, a learned standing counsel for the respondents, are heard. It emerges that a statutory appeal lies against the impugned order. This Court does not find any reason to interfere when there is an alternative remedy, and as such, the writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail such statutory remedy calling upon the appellate authority to decide on the appeal so filed expeditiously. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-