Allowed

M/S Jay Jagannath Wood v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Apr 2026WP/12958/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A partnership firm running a wood-based unit challenged seizure of its machinery for want of a forest licence, claiming exemption as a secondary wood based industry. The High Court directed the Deputy Conservator of Forests to verify eligibility under Circular-II and pass a reasoned order; machinery release to follow if exempted.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus to Deputy Conservator of Forests to consider exemption application with on-ground verification within six weeks; release of seized machinery if exemption is granted.

M/S Jay Jagannath Wood Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:22401 WP No. 12958 of 2026

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 12958 OF 2026 (GM-FOR)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

M/S. JAY JAGANNATH WOOD REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, PRAVEEN KUMAR K PATEL, S/O KARSAN KANJI PATEL, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, SURVEY NO.38/2, DODDAKARENAHALLI, NH 48, KUNIGAL ROAD, NELAMANGALA, BANGALORE RURAL - 562 123, PARTNERSHIP FIRM.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI. N. DINESH RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

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

¶16

THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, (HEAD OF FOREST FORCE), ARANYA BHAVANA, 18TH CROSS,

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:22401 WP No. 12958 of 2026

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE - 560 003.

¶20

DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, BANGALORE RURAL DIVISION, DEVANAHALLI - 562 110.

¶21

RANGE FOREST OFFICER, NELAMANGALA RANGE, NELAMANGALA - 562 110.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA)

¶24

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1. ISSUE A WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER INCLUDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO RESPONDENT NOS. 2 TO 4 TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 29/07/2025 COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-D AND/ DECLARE THE PETITIONER UNIT AS ONE OF NON-REQUIREMENT OF LICENCE UNDER RULE 163 OF THE KARNATAKA FORES RULES, 1969 IN VIEW OF CIRCULAR-II DATED 05/03/2026 ISSUED BY SECOND RESPONDENT COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-F BEARING NO. KEO/FRM/A6/(SAWM)9/2022-FRM-KFD AND ETC.,

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:22401 WP No. 12958 of 2026

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

The captioned petition is filed seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus addressed to respondents No.2 to 4 to consider the petitioner's application dated 29.07.2025 and exempt the petitioner's unit from obtaining a license under Rule 163 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 (for short, 'Rules 1969') in view of Circular-II dated 05.03.2026 issued by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-F.

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA. Perused the materials placed on record.

¶32

The petitioner, a partnership firm, asserts that its industrial activity squarely falls within the ambit of a “secondary wood based industry” as defined under Rule 2(6-D) of the Rules, 1969. Proceeding on this premise, it is contended that such category of industry stands exempted from the requirement of obtaining a license under the extant regulatory framework. It is the specific case of the petitioner that, in furtherance of the said claim, an application has been submitted seeking the benefit of exemption in terms of the circular produced at Annexure-F. The petitioner is, however,

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:22401 WP No. 12958 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

aggrieved by the precipitative action of the respondentauthorities in having seized the machinery of the petitioner-firm on the ground of absence of license, which, according to the petitioner, is wholly unsustainable in light of the claimed exemption.

¶36

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate, on instructions, would submit that the entitlement of the petitioner to claim exemption is not automatic, but is contingent upon a factual determination as to whether the petitioner’s unit indeed answers the description of a “secondary wood based industry” within the meaning of Rule 2(6-D) of the Rules, 1969. It is submitted that, in terms of the circular dated 05.03.2026 (Annexure-F), the competent authority, namely respondent No.3–Deputy Conservator of Forest, is vested with the jurisdiction and obligation to examine the nature of the petitioner’s industry namely whether it is a “secondary wood based industry” within the meaning of Rule 2(6-D) of the Rules, 1969 and to ascertain whether the parameters prescribed for such classification are satisfied. Only upon such verification can

¶37

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:22401 WP No. 12958 of 2026

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

the benefit of exemption from licensing requirements be extended.

¶41

In the light of the submission made by the learned Additional Government Advocate, and in order to appreciate the scope and tenor of the exemption claimed by the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the relevant portion of Circular-II dated 05.03.2026, produced at Annexure-F, which reads as under:

¶42

"Before deciding the non-requirement of license for such Wood Based industries under Rule 163 r/w Rule 2 of Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969, the following points must be complied with.

¶43

The jurisdictional Deputy Conservator of Forests must ensure that the above facts/eligibility conditions are duly verified on ground.

¶44

Such Wood Based industries satisfying the above parameters and not requiring a license must be registered with the jurisdictional Deputy Conservator of Forests in accordance with the Wood-Based Industries (Establishment and Regulation0 Guideline, 2016 (amended vide Resolution dated 11.09.2017- S.O.No.3000(E)] issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi.

¶45

The Deputy Conservator of Forests must maintain a register of such Wood Based Industries not requiring a license, till a formal mechanism of registration of such units is developed and notified by the department.

¶46

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:22401 WP No. 12958 of 2026

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

The jurisdictional Deputy Conservator of Forests must impose, on such Unit owners, the condition to prominently display through permanent boards regarding the exact kind of raw material used and kind of contrivances installed in the Unit at the main entrance of such Units before permitting them to function. A Notarised Undertaking from the Unit Owner on these points must be obtained.

¶49

The above guidance is issued purely for bringing better clarity among the field officers and also to avoid undue livelihood hardships faced by the genuine Wood Based Industries not requiring a license in the State of Karnataka."

¶50

A careful reading of the extracted portion of Circular-II

¶51

dated 05.03.2026 would unmistakably indicate that the determination as to whether a wood based industry falls within the exempted category, not requiring a license under Rule 163 read with Rule 2 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969, is not left to conjecture or unilateral assertion of the unit-holder, but is entrusted to the jurisdictional authority, namely, respondent No.3–Deputy Conservator of Forests. The circular mandates a structured exercise to be undertaken by the said authority, which includes on-ground verification of the nature of activity carried on by the unit, scrutiny of eligibility parameters, and satisfaction as to whether the industry answers the description of a “secondary wood based industry” within the meaning of

¶52

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:22401 WP No. 12958 of 2026

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

Rule 2(6-D). The circular further obligates the Deputy Conservator of Forests to ensure compliance with ancillary requirements such as registration of such exempted units, maintenance of records, and securing undertakings from the unit holders to prevent misuse of the exemption. Therefore, the scheme of the circular clearly postulates that the question of exemption is to be adjudicated by the competent authority upon due verification and not by resort to coercive measures at the threshold. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the grievance of the petitioner requires to be redressed by relegating the matter to respondent No.3, who shall examine the petitioner’s claim in the light of the parameters prescribed in the circular and take a considered decision as to whether the petitioner’s unit is entitled to exemption from the requirement of license. Such an exercise would necessarily include consideration of the petitioner’s application submitted in terms of Annexure-F and the consequential action of seizure would also have to abide by the outcome of such determination.

¶55

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:22401 WP No. 12958 of 2026

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶59

ORDER

¶60

i. The writ petition is hereby allowed ;

¶61

ii. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing respondent No.3–Deputy Conservator of Forests to consider the petitioner’s application seeking exemption from the requirement of license, in strict compliance with the parameters and procedure prescribed under Circular-II dated 05.03.2026 (Annexure-F);

¶62

iii. Respondent No.3 shall undertake a comprehensive verification, including on-ground inspection, to ascertain whether the petitioner’s unit qualifies as a “secondary wood based industry” under Rule 2(6-D) of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969, and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law;

¶63

iv. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within an outer limit of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order;

¶64

¶65

NC: 2026:KHC:22401 WP No. 12958 of 2026

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

v. In the event respondent No.3, upon such consideration, arrives at a conclusion that the petitioner’s unit falls within the exempted category and does not require a license, he shall forthwith take consequential steps for release of the machinery seized from the petitioner’s unit, subject to such conditions as may be imposed in terms of the circular.

¶68

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶69

HDK

¶70

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

M/S Jay Jagannath Wood v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Jay Jagannath Wood 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

Smt. Umadevamma, Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Devappa @ Devendra Biradar Vs State of Karnataka

Friends City Recreation Nyamathi-Surahonne Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Dilip Appachu Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S India Shelter Finance Corporation Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Srikanteshwara Traders Vs State of Karnataka