Ramakrishna Saw Mill and Wood Industries vs The State of Karnataka

S. Abdul Nazeer, J.—Though these cases are listed for orders, by consent of the learned Counsel for both the parties, they are taken up for final hearing and disposed of by this order.

Petitioners are the Proprietary concerns represented by their Proprietors in these writ petitions. They were granted Saw Mill Licences at Annexures ''A1'' to ''A4'' for the year 2013-2014. The licences were renewed for the year 2014-2015 as per the renewal orders at Annexures ''B1'' to ''B4''. As per these renewal orders, they were permitted to run the Saw Mill with certain number of saws/sawing contrivances. The 2nd respondent has passed the orders at Annexures ''C1'' to ''C4'' dated 18.07.2014, 14.07.2014, 14/15.07.2014 and 14.07.2014 respectively reducing the number of Sawing Contrivances. Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 4 filed applications before the 2nd respondent for review of the said orders. The 2nd respondent has rejected those representations as per the orders at Annexures ''E1'', ''E2'' and ''E3'' all dated 02/05.09.2014. The petitioners have called in question the validity of the orders at Annexures ''C1'' to ''C4'' and ''E1'' to ''E3'' in these writ petitions.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners would contend that the orders at Annexures ''C1'' to ''C4'' have been passed unilaterally without notice to the petitioners. The petitioners have been running the saw mills for the past several years. They have not violated any of the conditions of the licence at any point of time. Even the order passed by the 2nd respondent at Annexures ''E1'' to ''E3'' are also erroneous and unsustainable in law.

On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Advocate has sought to justify the impugned orders.

It is evident that the petitioners were issued with licences under sub-rule (3) of Rule 163 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 (for short ''Rules''), which were renewed from time to time. For the year 2014-2015, they were issued with the licences at Annexures ''B1'' to ''B4'' on payment of the prescribed fee under sub-rule (4) of Rule 163 of the Rules.

A perusal of the orders at Annexures ''C1'' to ''C4'' would clearly indicate that they have been passed unilaterally. No notices have been issued to the petitioners prior to passing of the said orders. It has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Similarly Annexures ''E1'' to ''E3'' have also been passed without hearing the petitioners. I am of the view that the 2nd respondent has to reconsider the matter.

In the result, these writ petitions succeed. They are accordingly allowed in part. The orders at "Annexures ''C1'' to ''C4'' dated 18.07.2014, 14.07.2014, 14/15.07.2014 and 14.07.2014 respectively and the orders at Annexures ''E1'', ''E2'' and ''E3'' all dated 02/05.09.2014 are hereby quashed. The 2nd respondent is permitted to issue fresh show cause notices to the petitioners by granting reasonable time to file the objections. The 2nd respondent has to consider the objections and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law thereafter. No costs.