IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA WRIT PETITION NO.9540/2017[GM-FOR] BETWEEN:
SRI. G. SURENDRA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O. LATE SEENA SHETTY, R/AT. SOURABA, CHRISTIAN COLONY, CHIKKAMAGALURU, PIN – 577 101.
... PETITIONER (By SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H., ADV.) AND:
1. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATIVE OF FOREST, (HEAD OF FOREST TASKFORCE), ARANYA BHAVAN, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU – 560 003.
2. ADDL. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATIVE OF FOREST, (FOREST RESOURCE MAINTENANCE OFFICER) ARANYA BHAVAN, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU – 560 003.
3. DEPUTY CONSERVATIVE OF FOREST, CHIKKAMAGALURU DIVISION, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577 102.
4. CHIEF CONSERVATIVE FOREST, CHIKKAMAGALURU, CHIKKAMAGALURU CIRCLE, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 102.
... RESPONDENTS (By SRI. SHIVA PRABHU HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R.1 TO R.4, SRI. H. MALATESH FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT IN IA 1/17) THIS WRIT PETIITON IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATIONS EFFECTIVELY, MAD ON 17.01.2017 AND 08.02.2017 FOR SHIFTING THE SAWMILL LICENCE NO.169 FROM BELGAVI DIVISION, BELGAVI TO PLOT NO.35 AND 36 OF AMBILE VILLAGE, KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT HEREWITH MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A & B.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner is before this Court seeking that the representations dated 17-01-2017 and 08-02-2017 for shifting the saw mill licence No.169 from Belagavi to plot No. 35 and 36 of Ambile village, KIADB Industrial area, Chikkamagaluru taluk and district, be considered effectively by the respondents.
2. The petitioner contends that he is intending to establish the saw mill in the plot Nos. 35 and 36 which is purchased by him in Ambile Industrial area, Chikkamagaluru district. The details relating to the purchase made is stated in the petition. The petitioner having secured the transfer of the saw mill licence to his name, since the saw mill licence No. 169 pertains to the Belgavi division, has made an application seeking transfer of the saw mill to Chikkamagaluru division, to carry on the saw mill activity in the plots purchased by the petitioner. Since the application as made by the petitioner has not yet been considered, the petitioner has made the representations dated 17-01-2017 and 08-02-2017. In that regard, the petitioner is seeking consideration of the same.
3. The details as submitted by the petitioner is also adverted to in the objection statement and it is pointed out that, as contended in the petition, the details as required for consideration of the application had been dispatched and report which was required to be submitted in the check list being sent in wrong format is also submitted. Thereafter, the same has been rectified and the details as sought is sent in the check list to the Chief Conservator of Forests is pending consideration. It is therefore pointed out that the consideration of the application made by the petitioner is under process. At that stage, since one P.C. Rajegowda had raised certain objections, the further details are being looked into in that regard. In this regard what is also to be kept in view is that the said Rajegowda has filed an application – I.A.No.1/2017 seeking that he be impleaded as respondent to this petition.
4. Having taken note of the contention as put forth in the impleading application, I am of the opinion that the need to implead the said applicant to this petition does not arise. I am of the said opinion, for the reason that when an application has been made by the petitioner for transfer of saw mill licence under the provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act and Rules and when the respondent – authorities are required to consider the same in accordance with the provisions contained therein, the authorities will have to take note of these aspects including the bar if any to grant such request and thereafter a decision is to be taken. In any event, the objection statement of the respondent would also indicate that they have already taken note of the objection raised by the proposed respondent and therefore the ultimate decision to be taken by the respondent - authorities can only be in accordance with law.
5. In that view of the matter, without reference to the objection as raised by the said objector, the facts involved herein would disclose that the petitioner having obtained approval for the saw mill licence in his favour, has made an application for setting up the saw mill in Chickmagalur division as against the licence that was granted in Belagavi division. In that regard, the process of consideration has been taken up by the respondent and the check list as required under the process has also been dispatched to the respondent No.4. If that be the position, the respondent No.4 will have to take note of these aspects of the matter keeping in view the legal provisions and take a decision. In that view of the matter, the respondent No.4 is directed to take note of the representations as also the applications submitted by the petitioner, consider the same in accordance with law and take a decision and communicate the same to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, but not later than two months from the date on which the copy of this order is furnished to respondent No.4.
6. Petition is accordingly disposed of.
7. I.A. No.1/2017 is also disposed of in terms of the observation made above.
SD/- JUDGE MGN/-