IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA WRIT PETITION NO.7621/2016 (GM-FOR) BETWEEN:
C. ANAND S/O.G.CHINNA THAMBI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS PROPRIETOR M/S. SHAKTHI SAWMILL MARUR VILLAGE, BELUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H., ADV.) AND:
1. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS ARANYA BHAVAN MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560 003.
2. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS HASSAN DIVISION ARANYA BHAVAN DAIRY CIRCLE, B.M.ROAD HASSAN-573 201.
3. ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND DEPUTY CONSERVATOR FOREST TECHNICAL ADVISOR HASSAN DIVISION ARANYA BHAVAN DAIRY CIRCLE, B.M.ROAD HASSAN-573 201.
4. RANGE FOREST OFFICER BELUR DIVISION HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHIVAPRABHU S. PATIL, AGA FOR R1-R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY R-2 DATED 03.09.2015 AT ANNEXURE-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 07.07.2015 as at Annexure-A to the petition.
2. The petitioner is the sawmill licensee, who had applied for renewal of the license. Through the order dated 07.05/07.07.2015 at Annexure-A, the renewal has been granted to the petitioner. The Authority however has limited the number of Saw with regard to the Horizontal, Vertical and Peeling as against what has been permitted at the earlier point in time when the license had been granted to the petitioner. It is in that view, the petitioner contending that such rejection of the number of Saw would not be justified, is seeking modification of the order as at Annexure-A to the petition.
3. In similar set of circumstances, the matter had arisen before this Court in W.P.No.36816/2016 and connected petitions dated 29.07.2016, this Court, having taken note of the similar situation had arrived at the conclusion that, since the period for which the application was made has spent itself, had further indicated that, if fresh application for renewal of license is made, the same shall be considered in accordance with law without being influenced by the earlier order passed by the Competent Authority.
4. If that be the position, in the instant case also, a similar consideration is required to be made. It is made clear that, if the Competent Authority considers the fresh applications to be made by the petitioner seeking renewal, such consideration shall be made as per law prevailing as on such date without being influenced by the earlier order of renewal made by the Competent Authority. Needless to mention that, if the application made by the petitioner seeking renewal for the year 2017-18 is pending, the same shall be considered and disposed of in an expeditious manner.
With the said clarification, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ST