Dr. M N Rao Vs State of Karnataka

"Peruse the legality and correctness of the registration of FIR against the Petitioner, and quash the FIR in Crime No.: CKM FOC No.05/2024-25, pending on the file of the Hon'ble Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru; and Range forest officer Chikkamagaluru Range, Chikkamagaluru KFA 1963 Section 163,165"

¶26

A perusal of the record would indicate that the petitioner has obtained a licence to run a Sawmill from a long period of time and on 25.06.2015, the petitioner submitted an application for permission to use and run additional machinery. In the meanwhile, the license already granted in favour of the petitioner for installing machinery was renewed from 06.10.2020 to 31.03.2025.

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:4919 CRL.P No. 294 of 2025

¶29

It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite submission of the repeated/several representations for permission to run the additional machinery in lieu of the existing machinery, instead of considering the said representations and passing appropriate order on the application submitted by the petitioner for additional machinery in lieu of the existing machinery and despite the order passed by the State Level Committee on 30.11.2022 recommending grant of permission for additional machinery in lieu of the existing machinery, the respondents have conducted inspection on 05.06.2024 and instituted the impugned proceedings for alleged offence under Sections 163 and 165 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of present petition.

¶30

The learned High Court Government Pleader submits that if reasonable time is granted, the representations submitted by the petitioner for grant of additional machinery in lieu of the existing machinery would be considered by the respondents who shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶31

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances in the

¶32

light of the undisputed fact that as of the date of the inspection by

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4919 CRL.P No. 294 of 2025

¶34

the respondents culminating in the impugned FIR, the application filed by the petitioner in the year 2015 and subsequent representation of the petitioner had not been considered coupled with the fact that no decision has been taken even till today apart from the fact that the Karnataka State High Level Committee had also recommended for grant of license for additional machinery on 30.11.2022 as evidenced by the Communication dated 28.10.2024 issued by the Additional Chief Conservator of Forests, in order to secure ends of justice, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition by quashing the impugned proceedings by directing the respondents and to consider the application of the petitioner as well as the subsequent representation dated 09.10.2024 [Document No.6] submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible after notifying the petitioner and granting the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and in accordance with law. Hence the following:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

[a] The petition stands disposed of.

¶37

5 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:4919 CRL.P No. 294 of 2025

¶39

[b] The impugned proceedings in Crime No.CKM FOC No.05/2024-25 on the file of the respondent No.1 are hereby quashed.

¶40

[c] The concerned respondents are directed to consider the applications, representations etc., of the petitioner as well as the subsequent representation dated 09.10.2024 [Document No.6] submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible after notifying the petitioner and granting the petitioner an opportunity of being heard in accordance with law.

¶41

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶42

AN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

Dr. M N Rao v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. M N Rao v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Vs State by

Mavalli Shankar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.Chetan Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Dawood Ahmed Vs the State of Karnataka

Manikanta Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Joel George Mascarenhas, Vs State of Karnataka