IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.9691 OF 2019 (GM-FOR) BETWEEN:
M/s.SHABANA SAW MILL REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SYED JAFFER, S/O SYED PEERSAB AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, HALE SANTHE BEEDI ALUR VILLAGE, BELUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 201. ...PETITIONER (By Smt.CHANDINI, ADVOCATE FOR Sri CHOWDA REDDY.C., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOREST M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN – 573 201.
3. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST HASSAN CIRCLE, HASSAN – 573 201.
... RESPONDENTS (By Sri VIJAYKUMAR.A.PATIL, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH RENEWAL ORDER DATED 31.01.2017 FOR FIVE YEARS FROM 2016-17 TO 2020-21 BY PERMITTING ONLY 1 HORIZONTAL SAW AND A VERTICAL SAW TO BE USED IN THE SAW MILL, TO THE EXTENT OF REJECTION OF OTHER SAWING CONTRAVENES ASKED FOR BY THE PETITIONER COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-K, AS ILLEGAL AND OPPOSED TO LAW.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Smt.Chandini, learned Counsel for Sri.Chowda Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.Vijay Kumar.A.Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.
3. In this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought a direction or order including writ of certiorari quashing renewal order dated 31.01.2017 for five years from 2016-2017 to 2020-2021 by permitting only one horizontal saw and a vertical saw to be used in the saw mill, to the extent of rejection of other sawing contrivances asked for by the petitioner.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner be granted liberty to approach the appropriate competent authority to address his grievance and the competent authority be directed to decide his application by a speaking order in accordance with law.
5. On the other hand, Sri.Vijaykumar.A.Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that incase, such an application is filed, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
6. In view of the aforesaid submission and in facts of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that incase the petitioner files a fresh application before the competent authority, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law by a speaking order within four weeks from today.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE DH