Dismissed

Sri. Mariswamy H v. the Deputy Conservator of Forest

Karnataka HC5 Oct 2021WP/4682/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an order rejecting a sawmill license renewal. The court held that an effective statutory appeal remedy exists, barring the writ invasion without just exceptions, and reserved liberty to prefer that appeal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to avail statutory appeal.

Sri. Mariswamy H Vs the Deputy Conservator of Forest — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 05^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.4682 OF 2021 (GM-FOR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. MARISWAMY. H, S/O LATE HANUME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, PROPRIETOR SRI GANESH SAWMILL AND WOOD INDUSTRIES, DEVARAHALLI VILLIAGE, K. M. DODDI ROAD, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. R. S. RAVI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, MANDYA SUB-DIVISION, MANDYA, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428.

¶13

THE ASSISTANT CONSERVATR OF FOREST, MANDYA SUB-DIVISION, MANDYA, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428.

¶14

THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER, MADDUR RANGE, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR, AGA)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER/OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED 19.02.2021 PASSED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-M & GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE ORDER/OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED 19.02.2021 PASSED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-M.

¶18

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Petitioner's application for renewal of sawmill license having been rejected vide Memorandum dated 19.02.2021 issued by the respondent No.1, a copy whereof is at Annexure-M, he is grieving before the writ court.

¶22

Learned AGA appearing for the official respondents opposed the writ petition contending that petitioner has an alternate remedy of statutory appeal in terms of Rule 163(10) of Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969, and there is no reason for bypassing the appellate forum and knocking at the doors of the writ court.

¶23

It has been consistent view of the Apex Court that where an alternate & equally efficacious remedy avails, citizens ordinarily should not invoke the writ jurisdiction subject to all just exceptions into which argued case of the petitioner does not fit.

¶24

In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed off reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail statutory remedy of appeal in accordance with law.

¶25

Registry is directed to return the impugned order after retaining a copy thereof in the file.

¶26

¶27

It hardly needs to be stated the period spent in prosecuting this writ petition shall be discounted while computing the period prescribed for limitation as per law while preferring the statutory appeal.

¶28

All contentions are kept open.

¶29

Sd/JUDGE

¶30

GRD/RH

Sri. Mariswamy H v. the Deputy Conservator of Forest

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Mariswamy H v. the Deputy Conservator of Forest

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jone Lawrence Lewis Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Nitin Shambhukumar Kasliwal Vs Idbi Bank Limited

Jeetendra Kumar Rajan S/O S R Mahato, Vs the High Court of Karnataka

Sri K E Hiyiyanna Vs the Chief Engineer

Sri. C.Muniraju Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Harsha Associates Vs the Principal Secretary to the