Disposed

M/S. Royal Wood Industries v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Aug 2024WP/972/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A wooden packaging unit sought consideration of its Form No.30 licence application pending since 2002 after authorities declined citing missing earlier licence documents. The court directed respondents to consider the fresh application irrespective of the earlier communication and extended interim protection.

What did the court decide?

Respondents to consider Annexure-F licence application within 90 days, notwithstanding Annexure-G communication; interim protection extended till next hearing.

M/S. Royal Wood Industries Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:30577 WP No. 972 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 972 OF 2021 (GM-FOR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/s. ROYAL WOOD INDUSTRIES REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR S/O LATE H.ABDUL JABBAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS NO.44/2, BANNIMANTAP INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT MYSORE-570 015.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. CHOWDA REDDY C., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DINESH RAO N., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶14

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS MYSORE DIVISION, WOOD YARD, ASHOKPURAM, JAYANAGAR, MYSORE - 570 008.

¶15

RANGE FOREST OFFICER OFFICE OF THE RANGE FOREST MYSORE RANGE, WOOD YARD, ASHOKPURAM, JAYANAGAR, MYSORE - 570 008.

¶16

CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST MYSORE CIRCLE WOOD YARD, ASHOKPURAM,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:30577 WP No. 972 of 2021

¶19

JAYANAGAR, MYSORE 570008

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR RUNNING PACKAGING UNIT USING THE VERTICAL SAW DATED 12.03.2020 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-F ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the non consideration of the application filed in Form 30 Rule 118 at Annexure-F dated 12.03.2020.

¶26

Petitioner is a proprietorship Firm carrying on the business under the name and style of M/s.Royal Wood Industries at 44/2, Bannimantap Industrial Layout, Mysore-570 015. The petitioner firm is a small scale industrial unit engaged in manufacturing of wooden packaging products like wooden cable drums, boards, boxes, crates and packaging cases. Petitioner requested for permission to install a Vertical Band Saw in their unit on 12.06.2002. That the petitioner is not running any saw mill but basically carrying on the business of

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:30577 WP No. 972 of 2021

¶29

manufacturing wooden packaging products such as wooden cable drums, boards, boxes, etc. for over two decades. That respondent authorities were interfering with the business on one or the other pretext. As such, petitioner filed suit in O.S.No.622/2015 for permanent injunction against respondents 1 and 2 and suit came to be decreed. Respondent authorities neither granted permission to use the vertical band saw nor rejected the application of the petitioner. On instruction of the respondent No.2, petitioner filed fresh application on 12.03.2020 as per Annexure-F.

¶30

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner had indeed made an application in the year 2002 and followed up by a reminder in the year 2019. However he submits said application was not in the prescribed format. Therefore he filed fresh application in prescribed Form No.30. He submits despite repeated requests and despite their being an order passed by this Court in W.P.29908/2019 dated 28.08.2019 and persistent follow up, respondents have not considered said application. He submits Annexure-G communication issued by the respondent is on the premise of petitioner not having furnished

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:30577 WP No. 972 of 2021

¶32

the earlier license and other documents in respect of the property in which the saw mill is run. He submits when the petitioner is seeking fresh license and his application is pending consideration since 2002 the question of he submitting copy of the renewal license would not arise. Thus, the order issued is without application of mind.

¶33

In response, learned HCGP submits that the application which is filed by the petitioner in the year 2002 was not in compliance with the format required. As such the same could not be considered. He submits now that the petitioner submitted application as per Annexure-F in Form No.30 the same would be considered in accordance with law given sometime in the matter.

¶34

At this juncture learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is having interim protection by virtue of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.29908/2019 as well as interim order passed by this Court on 19.01.2021 directing the respondents not to precipitate the matter. He submits said protection be extended until consideration of the application by the respondent. Submission is taken on record.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:30577 WP No. 972 of 2021

¶37

In view of the above;

¶38

(a) Petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities to consider the application filed by the petitioner for issuance of license as per Annexure-F. Said consideration shall be notwithstanding the communication at Annexure-G dated 20.05.2020 issued earlier as the reasons assigned therein do not pertain to the facts of the case.

¶39

(b) Petitioner is at liberty to submit all the required documents which may be called for by the respondent authorities for consideration of his application for issuance of license.

¶40

(c) The respondent shall undertake the exercise and pass appropriate orders one way or the other within an outer limit of 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶41

(d) Interim protection which was granted enabling him to continue the activity of wood packaging is extended till the next date of hearing.

¶42

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

¶43

SBN

¶44

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

M/S. Royal Wood Industries v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Royal Wood Industries 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

Sarvodaya Memorial Foundation Vs the Commissioner

M/S. Shree Veer Enterprises Vs the Commissioner

M/S Renaissane Design Build Vs Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

Sri. Lokeshwaraiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.H.R.Suryanarayana Vs Union of India

M/S. Atc Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs the State of Karnataka