M. Venkataramaiah vs State of Karnataka

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court assailing order dated 28.11.2012 in Appeal No. 3/2010-11 at Annexure-P to the petition. The petitioner is also seeking that the order dated 05.01.2011 issued by the third respondent (Annexure-M) be quashed. The order dated 21.07.2009 (Annexure-N) is also assailed.

The brief facts are that the petitioner claims to be the Proprietor of M/s. Uppalli Wood Industries situate at Balehalli, Chickmagalur District. The said sawmill is stated to have been established in the year 1996-97 in Sy. No. 111 of Uppalli village. The petitioner had shifted the same to Sy. No. 21 of Balehalli village and thereafter the renewal of licence had been sought. The Range Forest Officer, Chickmagalur Division, vide communication dated 06.05.2002 recommended the renewal of licence to the petitioner. The Assistant Conservator of Forest also recommended the renewal on 08.05.2002. The Deputy Conservator of Forest vide the order dated 09.05.2002 is stated to have permitted the shifting of the sawmill and also granted permission to install additional machineries. Subsequent thereto also, the licence is said to have been renewed in favour of the petitioner till 2010-11. The grievance presently is that the subsequent renewal which has been sought by the petitioner has not been considered and in that regard, though an appeal in No. 3/2010-11 was filed, the Appellate Authority without appropriately deciding the request of the petitioner for grant of licence, has disposed of the appeal.

Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would contend that the Appellate Authority though has taken note of the entire sequence with regard to the earlier shifting and the renewal of licence made, has thereafter proceeded at a tangent to state with regard to the contention that was put forth regarding the ownership of the sawmill. In any event, that aspect was not conclusively dealt but subsequently, while looking into the aspect relating to the renewal of licence has arrived at a conclusion that the sawmill is situate within 1 k.m. radius from forest and has thereafter in the operative portion of the order stated that since there are contradicting issues in the case concerned, the matter is to be referred to the State Empowered Committee. Since the Appellate Authority has not taken a decision one way or the other the order is not sustainable, is the contention. In that view, it is contended that the order which had been assailed before the Appellate Authority would also not be sustainable since in the case of present renewal, the authorities have not proceeded in an appropriate manner. It is contended that the approval of the Committee would be required only in respect of starting of sawmill and not for the purpose of renewal.

The respondents have filed their objection statement. In the objection statement, it is contended that the licence as claimed to have been granted is not in favour of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any right in this regard. With regard to the manner of consideration by the Appellate Authority, it has been contended that the Appellate Authority has taken note of the fact that the sawmill sought to be run is situate within 1 k.m. from the periphery of the Forest area. The decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court would indicate that when the sawmill is sought to be established within the radius of 10 k.m., the clearance of the State Empowered Committee is necessary. It is in that regard, the Appellate Authority has indicated that the matter requires consideration.

In the light of the contentions, a perusal of the order impugned at Annexure-P would disclose that the Appellate Authority having referred to all these aspects of the matter has in fact taken note of the contention on behalf of the respondents before it that the sawmill is at a distance of 1 k.m. and thereafter the ultimate order of seeking clearance from the State Empowered Committee has been indicated. Though with regard to the nature of consideration as directed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court is no more res integra, the factual aspect as to whether the sawmill is situate within the distance and in the present circumstance, for the said reason, whether the approval of the State Empowered Committee was required, would require a further detailed consideration in view of the contentions that have been advanced presently in the writ petition relating to three other sawmills also being located in the same area.

In that regard, a perusal of the writ petition would disclose that the petitioner has contended that there are three other sawmills by name Ganesh Sawmill, Arfa Sawmill and Azam Sawmill, which are also located in the same area. In the objection statement, though reference has been made to the Azam Sawmill, the details with regard to the Ganesh Sawmill and Arfa Sawmill and the nature of consideration made while granting licence to the said sawmills have not been referred to. In such circumstance, the same would also become relevant for consideration while the Appellate Authority taking into consideration the request made by the petitioner seeking renewal of the licence of the sawmill. I am of the said opinion for the reason that if the contention of the petitioner that the said three sawmills are also situate at the same distance from the periphery of the Forest as that of the unit belonging to the petitioner, a similar consideration requires to be made in respect of the said sawmills. In that regard, if in the said cases, the renewal of the licence has been granted after referring to the State Empowered Committee, a similar decision requires to be taken in the instant case also.

On the other hand, if for some reason it has been considered that the said three sawmills were to be granted renewal of sawmill licence without referring to the State Empowered Committee for the reasons recorded therein, and if on factual finding, it is seen that the three sawmills are situated at the same distance as that of the petitioner''s sawmill, a similar consideration would have to be made in the case of petitioner as well. Since all these aspects of the matter have not been taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority, the order dated 28.11.2012 would not be sustainable and the same is accordingly quashed and reconsideration is required to be made by the Appellate Authority.

Since at this juncture, I have arrived at the conclusion that the matter is to be reconsidered by the Appellate Authority, it is not necessary to advert to the correctness or otherwise of the orders dated 05.01.2011 and 21.07.2009 which are impugned at Annexures-M and N, since the same in any event would be the subject matter of consideration before the Appellate Authority. All contentions are left open to be urged before the Appellate Authority.

The petitioner shall now appear before the Appellate Authority on 06.03.2014 as the first date of appearance. The Appellate Authority shall thereafter regulate its proceedings and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible.

In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.