M. VENKATARAMAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.