Partly allowed

M/S Laxmi Ganesh Saw Mill v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Jan 2022WP/6866/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 seeking to quash an order passed without a hearing. The Court held that the failure to provide an opportunity of hearing renders the order legally unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition succeeded; the impugned order was set at naught and the matter was remitted to the authority of record for fresh consideration.

M/S Laxmi Ganesh Saw Mill Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.6866 OF 2021 (GM-FOR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S. LAXMI GANESH SAW MILL, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI T.V. KASI RAO, S/O SRI RAMAKRISHNA RAO, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, IRAVALLI VILALGE, KASABA HOBLI, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 115.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. DINESH RAO.N, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, M.S.BUILDING,

¶13

BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶14

2 . THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, HASSAN CIRCLE, ARANYA BAHVANA, DAIRY CIRCLE, BM ROAD, HASSAN - 573 201.

¶15

3 . THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, HASSAN DIVISION, ARANYA BHAVANA DAIRY CIRCLE, BM ROAD, HASSAN - 573 201.

¶16

4 . THE ASST CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS HASAN DIVISION, ARANYA BHAVANA, DAIRYA CIRCLE, BM ROAD, HASSAN - 573 201.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR, AGA)

¶19

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 05/18-12-2018 PASSED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNEXURE-F.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The short grievance of the petitioner is against the impugned order which has civil consequences; it complains that the same has been rendered unilaterally and without giving any opportunity of hearing to him. Learned counsel for petitioner points out the provisions of Section 163(6) of Karnataka Forest Rules 1969, which mandates the issuance of notice to the likely aggrieved.

¶24

Learned AGA on request having accepted notice for the respondents opposes the petition contending that even now petitioner can show the reason as to why the impugned order ought not to have been made and that no such ground having been pointed out, the impugned order cannot be faltered. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the petition.

¶25

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined

¶26

¶27

to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:

¶28

a) The impugned order apparently is made without an

¶29

opportunity of hearing granted to the petitioner; even God is said to have given an opportunity of hearing to Adam & Eve before punishing them for eating the forbidden fruit in the Eden Garden; that being the position, there is no justification for the answering respondent i.e., a mortal for not hearing the petitioner i.e., another mortal before making the impugned order materially impairing his rights.

¶30

b) Learned counsel for the petitioner is more than

¶31

justified in invoking the provisions of Rule 163(6) which reads as under:

¶32

"(6) Such Forest Officer may, after giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard, for reasons to be recorded in writing reject any application for grant or renewal of a licence, whereupon the applicant, unless he appeals against the orders of rejection under sub-rule (10), shall be entitled to a refund of the fee remitted by him under sub-rule (4)."

¶33

c) No special circumstances are pointed out by the

¶34

learned AGA for not adhering to this statutory mandate. His contention that petitioner has a right of appeal can be treated

¶35

as a China Wall between the Court and the citizen.

¶36

¶37

In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds;

¶38

impugned order is set at naught; matter is remitted to the author of the impugned order for consideration afresh, in accordance with law, all contentions having been kept open.

¶39

Cost made easy.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

JY/DS

M/S Laxmi Ganesh Saw Mill v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Laxmi Ganesh Saw Mill v. the State of Karnataka

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

M/S Manyata International School Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Najmunnisa Vs the Manager

Sri.Mohanlal Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Amith R Reddy Vs Smt Asha L

Major Rohith C G Vs the Union of India

Seshadripuram Educational Trust Vs State of Karnataka