Partly allowed

Sri B R Sathish v. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests

Karnataka HC8 Aug 2024WP/189/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging a communication rejecting a saw mill license renewal recommendation. The Court set aside the arbitrary order, remitted the matter with directions to consider existing reasons and hold a personal hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned communication dated 22.11.2019 set aside; matter remitted to respondent No.2 to consider correspondence and reasons, pass reasoned orders after personal hearing within eight weeks.

Sri B R Sathish Vs Principal Chief Conservator of Forests — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:31889 WP No. 189 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 189 OF 2020 (GM-FOR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. B.R. SATHISH S/O LATE B.H. VEERAPPA @ RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT BASARALU BILLAGE MUTHEGERE ROAD

¶9

MANDYA TAKLUK AND DISTRICT.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT. B V VIDYULATHA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS HEAD OF FOREST FORCE ARANYA BHAVAN, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560 003.

¶14

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (FOREST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT) ARANYA BHAVAN, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560 003.

¶16

CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS ARANYA BHAVAN, ASHOKAPURAM MYSORE-571401

¶17

DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS MANDYA SUB-DIVISION MANDYA-570 401.

¶18

RANGE FOREST OFFICER MANDYA SUB-DIVISION MANDYA-571401

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP)

¶21

¶22

NC: 2024:KHC:31889 WP No. 189 of 2020

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CORRESPONDENCE DATED 22.11.2019 MADE BY THE R-2 TO THE R- 3 AT ANNEXURE-Q TO THE PETITION. DIRECT THE R-1 AND 2 TO FORTHWITH RENEW THE SAW MILL LICENSE OF THE PETITIONER AS SOUGHT FOR IN REPRESENTATION DATED:16.08.2019 MADE BY THE PETITIONER AT ANNEXURE-P TO THE PETITION.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the Communication dated 22.11.2019 produced at AnnexureQ issued by respondent No.2 to respondent No.3 rejecting the proposal for renewal of the saw mill license.

¶27

The case of the petitioner is that his father namely Sri.B.H.Veerappa was running a saw mill in the name and

¶28

style of "Sri.Ganesha Saw Mill" Basarallu, Mandya from the year 1986 after obtaining the license from the Forest Department and that the said license was renewed upto the year 2007. That upon his demise, the petitioner had sought for renewal of license as well as for transfer of the

¶29

said license in his name. Upon such request, a notice came to be issued by respondent No.4 on 07.01.2015 as

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:31889 WP No. 189 of 2020

¶32

per Annexure-D calling upon the petitioner to pay Rs.1,28,000/- being license fee for 8 years from the year 2007-2008 to 2014-2015 along with penalty. That petitioner in compliance with the said notice had paid entire amount as demanded by way of demand drafts and the same has been acknowledged as seen at Annexure-F.

¶33

Learned counsel for petitioner referring to these documents submit that despite petitioner having complied with the demand notice and there being no allegation of violation of any of the terms of the license, respondent No.2 could not have issued the impugned communication rejecting the application for renewal of license. She also refers to a circular dated 12.03.2014 produced at Annexure-G issued by the Government of Karnataka, Forest Department formulating structure for imposition of penalty and submits that the calculation of penalty is based on the said circular and only upon such payment of penalty recommendation at Annexure-H was made for

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:31889 WP No. 189 of 2020

¶36

grant of renewal of license of the petitioner. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition.

¶37

Learned HCGP submits penalty calculated is upto the year 2014-2015 and that since there is no payment of license fee and penalty thereafter, and since license admittedly not being renewed on and after 2006 the petitioner is required to make fresh application in view of amendment to 163 Sub-rule (2-A) of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969. He further submits that as per the circular at Annexure-G application which are pending for renewal for more than ten years shall be treated as application for fresh license and same cannot be renewed as sought for by the petitioner. He submits that it is for these reasons, the respondent No.2 has declined to accept the recommendation made by respondent No.3 while issuing the communication produced at Annexure-Q. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petition.

¶38

Heard and perused the records.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:31889 WP No. 189 of 2020

¶41

Admittedly, father of the petitioner namely B.H.Veerappa was issued with a license to run a saw mill

¶42

under the name and style of "Sri.Ganesha Saw Mill" Basarallu, Mandya and same was valid upto 2007-08. It is only after his demise the petitioner-his son made application for renewal and also complied with other conditions to run saw mill. The respondent No.4 had issued notice calling upon the petitioner to pay license fee and penalty for the years 2007-08 upto 2014-15 as per Annexure-D which was duly paid. Thereafter the respondent No.4–Deputy Conservator of Forest issued a communication to the respondent No.3 as per Annexures-

¶43

H and J recommending renewal of license. Necessary at this juncture to extract the reasons assigned by the respondent No.4 in its communication dated 15.03.2018 to respondent No.3 wherein at page 2 of the said communication following is stated:

¶44

ಈ�ೕ�ನಪ��ಾ�ವ�ೆಯ��ವ��ರುವಂ�ೆ , ಸದ��ಾ��ಾಂಕ : 25/07/1997 ರ�ದಲು �ಾ�ಪ�ೆ ಾ!ದು" , #ೇಂದ� ಅ%#ಾರಸ� ಸ�&ಯ�� ಅನು�ೕದ�ೆ ಾ!ರುತ�(ೆ . �ಾ�� ಸು��&ಯ��ದು" , �ಾ�� )ಾ�ೕಕರ �ರುದ* ಾವ+(ೇ ಅರಣ- �ಕದ"�ಗಳ0 ಇರುವ+�ಲ� ಎಂದು ವಲಯ ಅರ3ಾ-%#ಾ� , ಮಂಡ- ವರ� )ಾಡು�ಾ� , ಸದ� �ಾ�� ಅನು6 ನ�ೕಕ�ಸಲು 78ಾರಸು9

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:31889 WP No. 189 of 2020

¶46

)ಾ:ರು�ಾ�;ೆ . ಈ <ಂ(ೆ ಆ!ರುವ #ೈತ?@Aಂದ / ತಪ+@ ಗ�<#ೆBಂದ 26 ಪ�ಕರಣಗಳನು6 ಒDEFೆ ಪ��ಾ�ವ�ೆ ಸ� � ದು" , ಾವ+(ೇಪ�ಕರಣಗಳನು6 ಇತ-ಥHಪ:ಸಲುಆ!ರುವ+�ಲ� .

¶47

ಸದ� )ಾ�ೕಕರು ��ಾಂಕ : 15/03/2013 ರ ಮನ�ಯ�� ಾ�� )ಾ�ೕಕ;ಾದ 7�ೕ I . JೆK . �ೕರಪ@ ,, ಇವರು �ವಂಗತ;ಾ!ದು" , ಸದ� �ಾ�� )ಾ�ೕಕತLವನು6 ಅವರ ಮಗ�ಾದ 7�ೕ . I . ಆM . ಸ&ೕN ಇವರ Jೆಸ�Fೆ ಪರOಾನ! ಬದQಾBಸRೇ#ಾ!ರುತ�(ೆ . �ಾ�� QೈಸS9 ನ�ೕಕ�ಸಲು ಪTOಾHನುಮ& (ೊ;ೆತ ನಂತರ )ಾ�ೕಕತL ಬದQಾBಸಲು ಕ�ಮ #ೈFೊಳVQಾಗುವ+ದು . ಆದ"�ಂದ ಈ �ೕಲWಂಡ �ಾ��ನು6 2007-08 �ಂದ 2017-18 �ೇ �ಾ�ನವ;ೆFೆ ನ�ೕಕ�ಸಲು ಅನುಮ& Aೕಡಲು �ೕQಾ%#ಾ�ಗYFೆ 78ಾರಸು9 )ಾಡRೇ#ೆಂದು ತಮZ��FೌರವಪTವHಕOಾ!�ನಂ&ಸQಾ!(ೆ .

¶48

ಈ �ಾ�� Qೈ�ೆS9 2006-07 �ೇ �ಾ�ನವ;ೆFೆ ನ�ೕಕರಣOಾ!ದು" , 2007-08 �ಂದ 201718 ರವ;ೆFೆ ನ�ೕಕ�ಸRೇ#ಾ!(ೆ . ಆದ"�ಂದಈ�ೕಲWಂಡ�ಾ��Qೈ�ೆS9 ಅನು6 2007-08 �ಂದ 2017-18 �ೇ �ಾ�ನವ;ೆFೆ ನ�ೕಕ�ಸಲು ಅನುಮ& Aೕಡಲು �ೕQಾ%#ಾ�ಗYFೆ 78ಾರಸು9 )ಾಡRೇ#ೆಂದುತಮZ��FೌರವಪTವHಕOಾ!�ನಂ&ಸQಾ!(ೆ .

¶49

Perusal of the said reasoning would indicate that

¶50

the application for renewal was filed, payment of renewal fee along with penalty was also made and that there was no violation of any terms and conditions and there was also no proceedings pending against the petitioner. These are the general conditions/criteria for consideration for

¶51

grant or renewal of license. Annexure–Q is the impugned communication by which the respondent No.2 has rejected the recommendation of the respondent No.3. Perusal of Annexure-Q would indicate that the points for

¶52

recommendation made by respondent No.3 have not been

¶53

¶54

NC: 2024:KHC:31889 WP No. 189 of 2020

¶55

adverted to. The impugned communication is cryptic and

¶56

without any reason which reads as under:

¶57

ANNEXURE- Q

¶58

ಕ�ಾHಟಕ ಸ#ಾHರ ಅರಣ- ಇQಾ]ೆ

¶59

ಸಂ]ೆ-: ಅಪ�ಮುಅಸಂ(ಅಸಂA).ಎಂ.ಎb.ಎಂಎ�/�ಆM-34/2018-19 ಅಪರ ಪ�lಾನ ಮುಖ- ಅರಣ- ಸಂರn3ಾ%#ಾ� (ಅರಣ- ಸಂಪನೂZಲ AವHಹ3ೆ) ರವರ ಕpೇ�, ಅರಣ- ಭವನ, ಮQೆ�ೕಶLರಂ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 22.11.2019. ಇವ�Fೆ ಮುಖ- ಅರಣ- ಸಂರn3ಾ%#ಾ�, �ೖಸೂರು ವೃತ�, �ೖಸೂರು. �ಷಯ : 7�ೕ ಗ3ೇಶ �ಾ��ನ )ಾ�ೕಕತL ಬದQಾವ3ೆ ಮತು� �ಾ�� Qೈ�ೆS9 ನ�ೕಕ�ಸುವ ಬFೆv,

¶60

ಉQೆ�ೕಖ : ಮುಖ- ಅರಣ- ಸಂರn3ಾ%#ಾ�, �ೖಸೂರು ವೃತ� ಇವರ ಪತ� ಸಂ]ೆ-. I3/�ಾ�ಪನ/ಮದೂ"ರು/2018-19, ¢£ÁAPÀ:: 07.08.2018.

¶61

ಮುಖ- ಅರಣ- ಸಂರn3ಾ%#ಾ�, �ೖಸೂರು ವೃತ� ಇವರ ಉQೆ�ೕyತ ಪ��ಾ�ವ�ೆಯನು6 ಈ ಕpೇ�ಯ�� ಪ�7ೕ�ಸQಾ!, 7�ೕ ಗ3ೇಶ �ಾ��ನ ಪರOಾನ!ಯನು6 2007-08�ೇ �ಾ�Aಂದ ನ�ೕಕ�ಸುವ ಕು�ತು ಸ� � ರುವ #ಾರಣಗಳ0 ಸJಾಯ#ಾ� ಾ!ರುವ+�ಲ�, Oಾಸ � ಕ�ೆ ಮತು� ಸ@ಷE�ೆ ಇಲ � ರುವ+ದ�ಂದ �ಾ�� ಪರOಾನ! ಪ��ಾ�ವ�ೆಯನು6 &ರಸW��(ೆ.

¶62

(z.ಎb. ಾದ{, |ಾಅ�ೇ) ಅಪರ ಪ�lಾನ ಮುಖ- ಅರಣ- ಸಂರn3ಾ%#ಾ� (ಅರಣ- ಸಂಪನೂZಲ AವHಹ3ೆ)

¶63

Respondent No.2 who is vested with the statutory

¶64

power is expected to act judiciously and any order passed

¶65

is required to be based on reasons, otherwise the same would amount to arbitrary exercise of its power. As seen

¶66

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:31889 WP No. 189 of 2020

¶67

above, since respondent No.2 has not adverted to the reasons assigned by respondent No.4 for recommending renewal of license and merely stated that the reasons for recommendations made by respondent No.3 are of no use, this Court is of the considered view the impugned communication requires to be set aside. Accordingly following:

¶68

ORDER

¶69

(i). Writ Petition is partly allowed.

¶70

(ii). Impugned communication dated 22.11.2019 at Annexure-Q is set aside. Matter is remitted to respondent No.2, who shall taking into consideration of the correspondences that ensued between respondent Nos.4 and 3 pertaining to the application for renewal filed by the petitioner and the reasons assigned therein, and after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶71

¶72

NC: 2024:KHC:31889 WP No. 189 of 2020

¶73

(iii). Such exercise shall be undertaken within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶74

(iv). Petitioner is at liberty to submit fresh

¶75

representation along with all the documents which are enclosed in this writ petition in support of his claim for renewal. Same shall be considered while passing order as

¶76

stated above.

¶77

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶78

SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

Sri B R Sathish v. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri B R Sathish v. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests

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

M/S. Sham Earth Movers and Construction Company Vs Authorized Officer / Finance Officer

K T Govinde Gowda Vs Union of India

Sri.B.S.Satish Vs the Authorized Officer

N H Bhaskar Reddy Vs the Special Deputy Commissioner

Mr R Shanmukha Sundar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Nagaraju. M.K. Vs the Managind Director, B.M.Tc.