Allowed

Sri Venkateshwara Saw Mill v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Jul 2023WP/5783/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka granted a writ of certiorari quashing an impugned order denying renewal of a sawmill licence. The court held that non-reasoned orders violate the rules of natural justice and remitted the matter for fresh consideration by the State Level Expert Committee within three months.

What did the court decide?

A writ of certiorari issued quashing the impugned order, and the matter was remitted to the 6th respondent-State Level Expert Committee for fresh consideration within three months.

Sri Venkateshwara Saw Mill Vs the State of… — Environment and Pollution | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:22729 WP No. 5783 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. 5783 OF 2022 (GM-FOR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. VENKATESHWARA SAW MILL, SY. NO. 524, KALLENAHALLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI. THIMMEGOWDA, S/O KENCHAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O KALLENAHALLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 402.

¶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 ENVIRONMENT, M.S. BUILDING, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

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

¶16

THE ADDL. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, ARANYA BHAVAN, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:22729 WP No. 5783 of 2022

¶19

THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU-570 008.

¶20

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

¶21

STATE LEVEL EXPERT COMMITTEE, REP. BY CHAIRMAN AND PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, KARNATAKA, ARANYA BHAVAN, 18TH CROSS MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, AGA)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RELEVANT RECORDS; TO QUASH THE DECISION OF THE STATE LEVEL EXPERT COMMITTEE (RESPONDENT NO.6) BEARING NO APCCF (FRM) A 6/SAWMILL/CR-51/2021-22 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.16 OF THE STATEMENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E ARBITRARY ILLEGAL AND ALSO AS NULL AND VOID.

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The challenge to the impugned order denying

¶28

renewal of sawmill licence is on the ground that it is not a reasoned decision. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that reasoned decision is a requirement of

¶29

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:22729 WP No. 5783 of 2022

¶30

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.

¶31

Learned AGA appearing for the official

¶32

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.

¶33

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, nonapplication of mind is prima facie demonstrated.

¶34

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:22729 WP No. 5783 of 2022

¶35

In view of the above, this Writ Petition succeeds; a Writ of certiorari issues quashing the impugned order; matter is remitted for fresh consideration at the hands of the 6^th respondent-State Level Expert Committee, all contentions having been kept open. Time for disposal of the remand is three months.

¶36

Now no costs.

¶37

It is open to the answering Respondent to solicit any information/documents from the side of the Petitioner for due consideration of the Representation. However, in the guise of such solicitation, no delay shall be brooked.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54

Sri Venkateshwara Saw Mill v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Venkateshwara 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 Byraveshwara Saw Mill Vs the State of Karnataka

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