Allowed

Sri Byraveshwara Saw Mill v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Jul 2023WP/5729/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed an order denying sawmill licence renewal on the ground of non-reasoning, remitting the matter to the State Level Expert Committee for fresh consideration within three months.

What did the court decide?

Writ of certiorari issued quashing the impugned order; matter remitted to State Level Expert Committee for fresh consideration within three months.

Sri Byraveshwara Saw Mill Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:22728 WP No. 5729 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 5729 OF 2022 (GM-FOR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. BYRAVESHWARA SAW MILL, TULASI, K. R. PETE TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 423. REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. D. M. YOGESH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O LATE D.S. MANJEGOWDA, TULASIGATE KIKKERI HOBLI, AIKANAHALLI POST, K.R. PETE TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R. GOULAY, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST AND ENVIRONEMNT, M.S. BUILDING, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

THE PRINCIPAL CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, ARANYA BHAVAN, 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003.

¶16

THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, ARANYA BHVAVN, 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:22728 WP No. 5729 of 2022

¶19

THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, MYSURU,

¶20

MYSURU DISTRICT-570 008.

¶21

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA-571 401.

¶22

THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER, KRISHNARAJAPETE RANGE, KRISHNARAJAPETE, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401.

¶23

STATE LEVEL EXPERT COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, ARANYA BHAVAN, 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, AGA)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE DATED 14.01.2022, SUBJECT 1.6 (NOT APPROVED) IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONER SAW MILL AT ITEM NO.48 AT SL.NO.15 OF THE STATEMENT PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-M AS ARBITRARY ILLEGAL AND ALSO AS NULL AND VOID.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The challenge to the impugned order denying

¶30

renewal of sawmill licence is on the ground that it is not a

¶31

reasoned decision. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that reasoned decision is a requirement of

¶32

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:22728 WP No. 5729 of 2022

¶33

principles of natural justice in the light of decision of Apex Court in MOHINDER SINGH GILL vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER, AIR 1978 SC 851 and therefore, the same is liable to be voided.

¶34

Learned AGA appearing for the official

¶35

respondents opposes the Petition contending that whether reasons need to be given or not, is a matter of policy and it all depends upon facts & circumstances of each case. So contending, she seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition.

¶36

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as it broadly agrees with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that non-reasoned orders are an anathema to the rule of law. In the absence of reasons, non-application of mind is prima facie demonstrated.

¶37

In view of the above, this Writ Petition succeeds; a Writ of certiorari issues quashing the impugned order;

¶38

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:22728 WP No. 5729 of 2022

¶39

matter is remitted for fresh consideration at the hands of the 7^th respondent-State Level Expert Committee, all contentions having been kept open. Time for disposal of the remand is three months.

¶40

Now no costs.

¶41

It is open to the answering Respondent to solicit any information/documents from the side of the Petitioner for

¶42

due consideration of the Representation. However, in the guise of such solicitation, no delay shall be brooked.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

CBC

¶45

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53

Sri Byraveshwara Saw Mill v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Byraveshwara 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Ashok M.B., Vs the Commissioner

Mr Dinesh Nambiar Vs M/S India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd.

Dr Moideen Nafseer T a Vs State of Karnataka

Sri M R Rajakumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Venkateshwara Saw Mill Vs the State of Karnataka

The Hotel Industrialists Co. Op Bank Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka