M K Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:4966 WP No. 3171 of 2025

¶2

1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 3171 OF 2025 (GM-FOR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M.K. AGROTECH PVT. LTD., REPRESENTED BY MARUF NO. 389, KAVARI LAYOUT, MB ROAD, SRIRANGAPATNA, MANDYA - 571 438 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER MR. BABU M, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS)

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN M. THIMMAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DHARMALINGAM Location: HIGH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY COURT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶13

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, ARANYA BHAVANA, MANDYA DIVISION, MANDYA - 571 401.

¶14

THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER, SRIRANGAPATNA RANGE, SRIRANGAPATNA, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 438.

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:4966 WP No. 3171 of 2025

¶17

ADDITIONAL CHIEF PRINCIPAL CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, (FOREST CONSERVATOR AND MANAGEMENT) ARANYA BHAVANA, 18^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE - 560 003.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. SESHU V, HCGP)

¶20

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO 4 TO ISSUE APPLICATION FOR LICENSE FOR USING CHIPPING UNIT AND ON SUBMISSION OF THE SAME TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION VIDE ANNX-C DATED 13.01.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND ETC.,

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice for all the respondents.

¶25

It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is a manufacturer of sunflower edible oil and for the process of manufacturing the oil, the petitioner needs wood

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:4966 WP No. 3171 of 2025

¶28

pallets/chippings. The petitioner is not trading in wood blocks/pallets and the same is only used for self-consumption. It is contended that prior to the amendment brought to Rule 163 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969, Chipping Units were exempted from obtaining license under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and the Rules therein. However, after amendment, the officials of the Forest Department are now insisting that a license should be obtained under Rule 163 of the Karnataka Forest Rules 1969. The prayer therefore is to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 to 4 to issue an application form for grant of license in terms of the representation at Annexure-C dated 13.01.2025 given by the petitioner.

¶29

Therefore, the writ petition stands disposed of, permitting the petitioner to file an application without any prescribed format, seeking grant of licence for establishing the Chipping Unit. Respondents are directed to consider the same in accordance with law. The petitioner shall file an application within a period of two weeks from today. If such an application is filed by the petitioner, respondent-Authorities are required to consider the same in accordance with law and pass necessary

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:4966 WP No. 3171 of 2025

¶32

orders, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of submission of application by the

¶33

petitioner.

¶34

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶35

rv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5 CT: BHK

M K Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M K Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. v. the 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

Sri Praveen Bhandary Vs the Authorized Officer

Kempahonnaiah IAS Vs Department of Personnel and Training

Mr Siddaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Shakunthala Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Abdul Aleem Vs Indusind Bank Limited

Smt. P. N. Vijayalakshmi Vs Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd.