IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE BETWEEN:
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.52133/2019(GM-FOR) KARNATAKA SAW MILL BASAVANAHALLI (VADDARAHALLI) LAKSHMIPURA PANCHAYATH, KIKKERI HOBLI, K.R PETE TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571423 REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI MUBARAK ALI, S/O LATE S M ABDUL RAZAK, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, BASAVANAHALLI LAKSHMIPURA, KIKKERI HOBLI, K.R PETE TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571423.
(BY SRI CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ...PETITIONER DEPARTMENT OF FOREST AND ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.
2 . THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS ARANYA BHAVAN, 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560003.
3 . THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA-571423.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIJAYKUMAR A PATIL, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) …… THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 28.10.2019 PASSED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND THE REMINDER NOTICE DATED 5.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER, KR PETE RANGE VIDE ANNEXURE-H, AND TO PASS SUITABLE ORDER KEEPING IN MIND THE DECISION OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TN GODAVARAM THIRUMULLIPAD VS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS DECIDED ON 19.12.1996 AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF THE CENTRAL EMPOWERING COMMITTEE DATED 24.7.2008 AS PER ANNEXURE-B ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner filed the present writ petition for a writ of certiorari to quash the notice dated 28.10.2014 vide Annexure-F and reminder notice dated 05.12.2019 vide Annexure-H and for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to issue licence to the petitioner to run the saw mill keeping in mind the decision of the Central Empowering Committee dated 24.07.2008, as per Annexure-B and the reply of the petitioner dated 02.12.2019, vide Annexure-G.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is an established saw mill at Basavanahalli (Vaddarahalli), Lakshmipura Panchayath, Kikkeri Hobli, K.R.Pete, Mandya District. On the application for the said purpose being considered, No Objection Certificate was granted by the Forest Department on 12.06.1997 and the petitioner has been running the said saw mill from that date, till now and has obtained electricity connection for the said purpose. The industrial license as required from the District Industrial Officer has also been obtained for running the saw mill. It is further case of the petitioner that the petitioner would not fall under the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.N.Godavaram Thirumullipad vs. Union of India and others. When things stood thus, the respondent No.3-Deputy Conservator of Forest, issued the notice and reminder vide Annexures-F and H, in response to which, the petitioner filed detailed objections on 02.12.2019. Without considering the objections and without passing appropriate orders, the respondents are trying to interfere with the running of petitioner’s saw mill. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court, for the relief sought for.
3. On taking notice to the respondents, Sri Vijaykumar A.Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that, at the very outset, the writ petition filed against the notices vide Annexures-F and H, is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as premature as the objection filed by petitioner is not yet decided by the authority. No person is permitted to run the saw mill without licence from competent authority. Mere issuance of No Objection Certificate does not amount to license and therefore, sought to dismiss the writ petition.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, according to the petitioner, he is running the saw mill based on the No Objection Certificate issued, from the year 1997. Now, respondent No.3 issued notice as per Annexures-F and H. In response to the said notice, petitioner filed detailed objection on 02.12.2019 as per Annexure-G. It is for the Deputy Conservator of Forests to consider the objections and pass appropriate Orders, in accordance with law, keeping in view the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godavaram, stated supra, and the provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act. Even before passing the order, the petitioner has challenged the notices issued by the respondents and the same is premature.
5. In view of the above, writ petition is disposed off.
The respondent No.3 is directed to consider the objections filed by the petitioner dated 02.12.2019, as per Annexure-G, in response to the notice issued as per Annexures-F and H dated 28.10.2014 and dated 05.12.2019, respectively. Till such consideration, respondents shall not take any precipitate action against the petitioner. Further, the respondents are directed to pass orders, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order.
Sd/- JUDGE kcm