Allowed

M/S Rushil Decor Ltd. v. the State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC5 Jun 2024WP/37552/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A saw-mill licensee challenged a licence condition barring sawing after sunset or before sunrise. Holding the restriction had no rational basis and violated Article 19(1)(g), the High Court quashed the condition and a related departmental circular.

What did the court decide?

Condition No.2 in Form No.42 licence and Circular dated 15.2.2017 quashed; petitioner entitled to run factory without that restriction, subject to other law.

M/S Rushil Decor Ltd. Vs the State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:19481 WP No. 37552 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 37552 OF 2017 (GM-FOR)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

M/S RUSHIL DECOR LTD PLOT NO.58, 59 & 60 (P) AMBLE INDUSTRIAL AREA, GOWDANAHALLI, CHIKMAGALURU-577 101, REPRESENTED BY SRI NAGARAJU SR, SENIOR MANAGER, M/S RUSHIL DECOR LTD. PLOT NO.58, 59 AND 60 (P) AMBLE INDUSTRIAL AREA, GOWDANAHALLI, CHIKMAGALUR-577 101.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. P P HEGDE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. UMESH P H, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOREST, ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT DEPT, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶11

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (HEAD OF FOREST FORCE), ARANYA BHAVAN, MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶13

DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST CHIKMAGALUR DIVISION, CHIKMAGALUR-577 101.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SMT. B V ADITHI, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

¶16

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH CONDITION NO.2 (WHICH READS AS " NO SAWING SHOULD BE DONE AFTER SUBSET OR BEFORE SUBRISE, EXCEPT UNDER THE SPECIAL PERMISSION OF THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS " ) IN FORM NO. 42 OF THE KARNATAKA FOREST RULES 1969 AT ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.,

¶17

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

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:19481 WP No. 37552 of 2017

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, engaged in manufacturing MDF board products and decorative laminate products. The petitioner was granted a license to establish a saw-pit, saw-mill, or other sawing contrivance under Rule 163(5) of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 (“Rules”). Conditioned in Form-42, one stipulation is that the petitioner shall not carry out sawing after sunset or before sunrise, except with special permission from the Deputy Conservator of Forests, which is contested in this petition.

¶21

Learned Senior Counsel Sri P. P. Hegde argues that the restriction on sawing after sunset or before sunrise is contrary to Article 301 of the Constitution of India and Article 19(1)(g), which guarantees the right to carry on any occupation, trade, or business. He contends that this restriction, lacking a legal basis, unlawfully impedes the petitioner’s business, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Mysore v. H. Sanjeeviah (1967) 2 SCR 361 : AIR 1967 SC 1189.

¶22

The learned Additional Government Advocate representing respondents No. 1 to 3 asserts that the Circular dated February 15, 2017, issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests justifies the restriction in the interest of the general public and opposes the petition’s dismissal.

¶23

Rule 163 of the Rules regulates private saw pits, saw mills, or similar sawing devices, stipulating that no such facility shall

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:19481 WP No. 37552 of 2017

¶25

operate within reserved forests, protected forests, or district forests without a license from the respective Range Forest Officer.

¶26

Sub-rule 5 empowers the Forest Officer to grant licenses in Form 42, subject to compliance with the Act, Rules, and any reasonable restrictions or conditions specified in the license, separately for different locations. In accordance with this authority, the petitioner was granted a license with the condition prohibiting sawing after sunset or before sunrise.

¶27

Sub-rule 5 of Rule 163 explicitly allows for the imposition of reasonable restrictions in granted licenses.

¶28

The Supreme Court addressed a similar issue regarding restrictions on transporting forest products between sunset and sunrise in State of Mysore v. H. Sanjeeviah (supra). The Court ruled that regulatory measures facilitating rather than obstructing trade, commerce, and movement are not unconstitutional under Article 301, irrespective of reservations in Article 305.

¶29

In this case, there appears to be no rational basis for prohibiting sawing after sunset or before sunrise. This restriction violates Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to carry on any occupation, trade, or business, allowing restrictions only in the interest of the general public. Therefore, the clause restricting the petitioner from sawing during prohibited hours is unconstitutional under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:19481 WP No. 37552 of 2017

¶32

ORDER

¶33

i) The impugned condition No.2 in Form No.42 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 issued to the petitioner at AnnexureG, and also the Circular dated 15.2.2017 issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Aranya Bhavan, Bangalore vide Annexure-K are hereby quashed.

¶34

ii) The petitioner is entitled to run the factory without any restrictions subject to other requirements of law.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

BKM

M/S Rushil Decor Ltd. v. the State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Rushil Decor Ltd. v. the State of Karnataka by

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

The Board Trust and Muslim Endowments Vs Smt N M Kamalamma

Sri Ganesh Shetti Vs the Can Fin Homes Ltd.

Smt Anitha H Vs Sri B R Krishna

Divisional Controller Vs Shri. Garuda B M

Ganapu Vs Mrs Shakila M Naik

M/S Fun World & Resorts India (P) Ltd. Vs the Karnataka Exhibition Authority