Allowed

Sri Vijaya Kumar S L v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Jun 2024WP/2632/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A saw mill owner challenged a forest department endorsement rejecting his application for a peeling wood machine licence on the sole ground that a committee's report was awaited. The High Court held the unreasoned order violated natural justice, set it aside, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned endorsement dated 16.08.2022 set aside; matter remitted to Deputy Conservator of Forest for fresh reconsideration on a new representation within four weeks.

Sri Vijaya Kumar S L Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:22319 WP No. 2632 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 2632 OF 2024 (GM-FOR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI VIJAYA KUMAR S L S/O R LAKSHMANA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, M/S SARASHWATHI SAW MILL BALUPETE SAKALESHAPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT 573 214.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RAJARAMA S.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by Vandana S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, FOREST , ENVIRORNMENT AND ECOLOGY DEPARTMENT KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT ROOM NO. 442, 4^th FLOOR, GATE NO.2 M.S BUILIDING, BANGALORE 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶14

CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, O/O PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, 4^th FLOOR, ARANYA BHAVAN, MALLESWHARAM BANGALORE.

¶15

DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN 01.

¶16

ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS SAKALESHPURA SUB DIVISION, SAKALESHPURA 573 134

¶17

RANGE FOREST OFFICER SAKALESHPURA RANGE HASSAN DISTRICT – 01.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.RAHUL CARIAPPA., AGA)

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC:22319 WP No. 2632 of 2024

¶22

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE R3 (DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST) IN ORDER NO. A3/SAW MILL/CR-56/2007/2008 DATED 16/08/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-

¶26

“ (A) Issue a writ of Certiorari by quashing the endorsement issued by the 3^rd respondent (Deputy Conservator of Forest) in order No.A3/SWA/MILL/CR-56/2007/2008 dated: 16.08.2022 vide Annexure-A in the interest of justice and equity.

¶27

(B) ISSUE a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, seeking direction from this Hon’ble Court to consider the submitted representation filed by the petitioner herein dated: 17.11.2021 vide Annexure-B, consequently issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus, seeking direction from this Hon’ble Court to direct the respondents authorities to issue the licenses to Veneer/Peeling machine renew the licence in accordance with law.

¶28

(C) ISSUE any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case including an order as to costs.”

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA

¶30

for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:22319 WP No. 2632 of 2024

¶32

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order does not assign any reasons as to why the application for grant of peeling wood machine licence was being rejected except stating that a report is awaited from the Committee constituted by the respondents and as such, the impugned order being unreasoned, non-speaking and violative of principles of natural justice, deserves to be set aside and directions be issued to the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 17.11.2021 in accordance with law.

¶33

Per contra, learned AGA for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶34

A perusal of the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 16.08.2022 will indicate that after having stated that the report of the committee is still awaited, the respondents have not awaited the receipt of the said report and have summarily rejected the request of the petitioner by passing the impugned order which is cryptic, laconic, unreasoned and non-speaking without assigning

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:22319 WP No. 2632 of 2024

¶37

any reasons and as such, on this ground alone, the impugned order being violative of principles of natural justice, deserves to be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the 3^rd respondent for

¶38

reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

¶39

In the result, I pass the following:-

¶40

ORDER

¶41

(i) Petition is hereby allowed.

¶42

(ii) The impugned Endorsement at Annexure-A dated

¶43

16.08.2022 issued by the 3^rd respondent is hereby set aside.

¶44

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the 3^rd respondent for

¶45

reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

¶46

(iv) The petitioner is directed to submit additional / new representation to the 3^rd respondent who shall consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders and take appropriate decision within a period of four weeks from the date of submission of fresh / new representation by the petitioner.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

Srl.

Sri Vijaya Kumar S L v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Vijaya Kumar S L 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

Star Health and Allied Vs State of Karnataka by

Smt. Kokila Vs Canara Bank

Shri Umesh Kondajji Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Fab Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Karnataka State Medical Supplies Corporation

Mr Manjunath R Vs M/S Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd.

Mr R Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka