IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO.14824 OF 2022 (GM-FOR)

BETWEEN:

SRI C.M.VIJAYKUMAR SINGH S/O.NAME SINGH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS N.M.C.WOOD INDUSTRIES BASAVANAHALLI CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101 …PETITIONER (BY SRI R.G.HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOREST AND ENVIRONMENT M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001

2. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST Digitally CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT signed by B CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101 LAVANYA Location: 3. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST HIGH CHIKKAMAGALURU DIVISION COURT OF CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101 KARNATAKA

4. THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER CHIKKAMAGALURU RANGE CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.B.SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 06.04.2022 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT RESPONDENT NO.3 TO RENEW THE LICENSE CONSIDERING THE APPLICATION DATED 16.06.2020 AS PER ANNEXURE-B.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the endorsement dated 06.04.2022 issued by respondent No.3, in terms of which, the request of the petitioner to renew the sawmill licence has been declined on the premise that the sawmill and the equipments are not functional on and after the year 2006.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner, taking this Court through the provisions of Rule 163 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969, (for short, 'the Rules of 1969') submits that no such provision is provided under the Act or the Rules, enabling the respondent- authority to reject the application for renewal merely because the sawmill and the equipments were kept idle. Besides, he further submits, that such an order has been passed by the respondent-authority without providing an opportunity of hearing the petitioner.

3. In response, learned Additional Government Advocate referring to a circular dated 12.03.2014 at Annexure-R1 produced along with the statement of objections, submits that since admittedly the sawmill and the equipments have remained unused for over 10 years, an application, if any, made by the petitioner is required to be considered as a fresh license. It is for this reason, the endorsement has been issued and no arbitrariness or malafide can be attributed. She further submits that if an application is made by the petitioner, the same will be considered as a fresh license in accordance with law.

4. Heard. Perused records.

5. There is no dispute in the fact that the petitioner had been issued a license to run a sawmill for the purpose of manufacturing of the furnitures. The said license has been renewed time to time. The last renewal admittedly was for the year 2006 as per Annexure-E7. Thereafter, there has been no renewal of licence though the petitioner had pleaded his ill health for he not being able to either run the sawmill or seek renewal. However, the fact remains that the licence has not been renewed on and after the year 2006.

6. Relevant provisions governing grant of licence and its renewal is as under:-

"163. Control of private saw pits, saw mills or any other sawing contrivances.- [(1) No saw pit or any other hand-sawing contrivance for cutting or converting timber shall be established within the limits of any reserved forest, protected forest or district forest or within 2 kilometres of such limits or within the area specified below, without obtaining a licence from the concerned Deputy Conservator of Forests.-

xxx (2-A) No person shall establish a sawmill or any other sawing contrivance, other than those specified in Rule 2(b), (6-C) and 163(1) for cutting or converting timber, anywhere in the state, without obtaining a licence from the concerned licence issuing auth