Disposed

Shevaroy Mara Viyabarigal v. The District Forest Officer

Madras HC28 Jun 2016WP/12327/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this agreed writ petition, the petitioner association and individual saw mills sought a direction to renew their licenses without reference to general instructions issued by the third respondent. The parties agreed to dispose of the petition by directing necessary orders to be passed within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction that necessary orders will be passed regarding the renewal application of petitioners within a maximum period of two months.

Shevaroy Mara Viyabarigal Vs The District Forest Officer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 28.06.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

The Hon'ble MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE AND The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶5

W.P.No.12327 of 2016

¶6

1.Shevaroy Mara Viyabarigal and

¶7

Mara Aruvai Mill Urimayalargal Sangam (Regd) rep. by its President, Door No.432, 432/1, Gurumampattu Road, Gorimedy, Salem – 636 008. 2.M/s.Bharathi Wood Industries, rep. by its Proprietor Bharathiyar. 3.M/s.Nachiar Amman Saw Mill, rep. by its Proprietor M.Sadhasivam. 4.M/s.Sri Gomathi Saw Mill “A”, rep. by its Proprietor S.Subramanian 5.M/s.Sri Gomathi Saw Mill “B”, rep. by its Proprietor S.Subramanian 6.M/s.Sri Gomathi Saw Mill “C”, rep. by its Proprietor S.Subramanian 7.M/s.RKS Industries, by its Proprietor K.R.Krishnamurthy 8.M/s.KS Saw Mill, by its Proprietor K.R.Krishnamurthy 9.M/s.South India Saw Mill, by its Proprietor Vijay N.Pokar 10.M/s.Sri Vishnu Saw Mill, by its Proprietor T.Nanji 11.M/s.Amman Saw Mill, by its Propertix R.M.Valliammal 12.M/s.Sri Lakshmi Saw Mill, by its Proprietor S.Gunaseelan. 13.M/s.PK Saw Mill, by its Proprietor P.Krishnan 14.M/s.New Ashoka Wood Industries, by its Proprietor M.S.Rajkumar 15.M/s.Bhagavan Saw Mill, by its Proprietor S.Gangaram 16.M/s.Sri Vinayaga Wood Industries, by its Proprietor A.Govindaraj .. Petitioners (Petitioner Nos.2 to 16 impleaded as per order dt. 28.6.2016 in WMP.No.12309/2016)

¶8

.. Petitioners

¶9

-vs-

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

1.The District Forest Officer, Salem Division, Salem.

¶12

2.Conservator of Forests, Salem Circle, Cherry Road, Salem – 636 007. 3.Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, No.1, Jeenis Salai, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai-600 015. .. Respondents

¶13

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to renew the license of the 15 Saw Mills owned by the members of the Petitioner Association as given in Annexure to the affidavit in accordance with Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Wood Based Industries Rules, 2010 without reference to the general instructions given by the third respondent in his Letter Ref.No.WR4/43180/2013 dated 07.11.2013.

¶14

It is agreed that the writ petition be disposed of with a direction that in view of the facts recorded in W.P.No.30149 of 2013 and seizure of the records, necessary orders will be passed qua renewal application of petitioners Nos.2 to 16 in accordance with law within a maximum period of two months from today.

¶15

The writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. No costs.

¶16

/true copy/

¶17

Sub Asst. Registrar

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

¶20

1.The District Forest Officer, Salem Division, Salem. 2.The Conservator of Forests, Salem Circle, Cherry Road, Salem – 636 007. 3.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, No.1, Jeenis Salai, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai-600 015. +1 cc to Mr.S.Kadarkarai, Advocate,sr.36041 +1 cc to Spl.Govt.Pleader,Sr.35924. nr(co) krd 21/7 W.P.No.12327 of 2016

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Shevaroy Mara Viyabarigal v. The District Forest Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shevaroy Mara Viyabarigal v. The District Forest Officer

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

R.Suresh Vs the Commissioner

V.Sekar, Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

P.Pugalenthi, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

V.Gopalakrishnan Vs Secretary to Government

M.v.Ramani Vs the State of Tamilnadu

A.K.Palanisamy Vs the Commissioner