Disposed

Adil Shariff v. the Principal Cheif Conservator

Karnataka HC5 Apr 2022WP/4648/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought a mandamus directing the Range Forest Officer to renew Saw Mill Licences and Property Mark Registration. The court directed the respondent officer to consider the renewal application within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to consider the application for renewal of Saw Mill Licence within four weeks.

Adil Shariff Vs the Principal Cheif Conservator — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF APRIL 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.4648 OF 2022 (GM-FOR)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

ADIL SHARIFF PROPRIETOR A.S. TIMBER & FURNITURE AND SAW MILL S/O. ROUF SHARIFF AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS NO-2587, AGASAKERI, LASHKAR MOHALLA, MYSORE-570 001. ... PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND :

¶10

THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, ARANYA BHAVAN, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560 055.

¶11

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS MYSORE DIVISION, MYSORE-570 003.

¶12

RANGE FOREST OFFICER MYSORE RANGE

¶13

MYSORE-570 003. ... RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATIL, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-3)

¶15

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT TO THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 TO RENEW THE LICENSES I.E., FROM NO.42 AND 36 SAME AT ANNEXURE-A AND C RESPECTIVELY BY CONSIDERING PETITIONER APPLICATION AT ANNEXURE-B.

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for respondents 1 to 3.

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP.

¶21

Petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a mandamus to direct respondents 2 and 3 to renew the licences i.e. Form Nos. 42 and 36 by considering the application as at Annexure – B.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶23

the petitioner submitted application for renewal of Saw

¶24

¶25

Mill Licence and Property Mark Registration. It is further submitted that the petitioner submitted application in the prescribed form as at Annexure – B along with representation.

¶26

It is the grievance of the petitioner that inspite of making application, the respondents are sitting over the application without taking any decision.

¶27

Learned HCGP on the other hand submits that the petitioner was asked to submit certain documents such as up-to-date stock register, but the petitioner has failed to submit the relevant documents. However, she submits that the application at Annexure – B would be considered in accordance with law.

¶28

¶29

7 . Taking note of the submissions, I deem it

¶30

appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction:

¶31

Respondent No.3 is directed to consider the application for renewal of Saw Mill Licence as at Annexure – B, in accordance with law, within a period of

¶32

four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶33

SD/JUDGE

¶34

brn

Adil Shariff v. the Principal Cheif Conservator

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adil Shariff v. the Principal Cheif Conservator

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Amit Banerji Vs Ms. Anuradha Nehra

C.M.Mupasil @ Saddam Vs Union Bank of India

M/S Kanchana Industries Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

M/S Radiant Jasmine Properties Vs M/S Tumkur Grain Merchants Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Shantha Prakash Vs The Assistant Commissioner

N.S. Murthy Vs the State of Karnataka