Digitally signed by CHAITHRA

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 30.10.2019 AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER FOR SHIFTING OF THE SAW MILL AT THE AREA OF SY. NO.64/4 OF KANIMINIKI VILLAGE KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK AND TO RENEW THE SAW MILL LICENCE OF THE PETITIONER AND ETC.,

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL ORDER

Petitioner in the captioned petition is seeking for the following reliefs:

i. Issue a writ of mandamus, direction directing the respondent authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 30.10.2019 and direct the respondent authorities to pass appropriate order for shifting of the saw mill at the area of Sy.No.64/4 of Kaniminiki Village Kengeri Hobli Bangalore South Taluk and to renew the saw mill licence of the petitioner at Annexure-G.

ii. Direct the respondent authority to keep the existing licence alive and not to declare the licence is expired until the consideration of the petitioner's request by the authority;

iii. Pass any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deemed fit to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA. Perused the records.

The facts leading to the case are as under:

The petitioner, who is the proprietor of M/s. Meenakshi Saw Mill, asserts that he had secured a valid saw mill licence on 26.04.2012 and was lawfully carrying on the said business till the year 2014. It is his specific case that on account of acquisition of the land in question for the purposes of Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (BMRCL), he was compelled to discontinue operations at the existing location and consequently shift the saw mill. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite submitting necessary representations seeking permission for relocation/continuation of the saw mill in accordance with law, the respondents failed to take any decision. Being aggrieved by such inaction, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court in W.P. No.26117/2019. This Court, by order passed therein, disposed of the writ petition directing the competent authority to consider the petitioner’s representation in accordance with law.

Pursuant to the said direction, respondent No.4 passed an order dated 20.09.2019, wherein it was observed that the request of the petitioner for shifting of the saw mill requires fresh consideration and has to be processed in terms of the provisions of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969. The petitioner contends that despite the said categorical observations and notwithstanding submission of a fresh representation dated 30.10.2019 (Annexure–G), the respondents have not taken any further steps, thereby exhibiting clear inaction and apathy in discharging their statutory obligations. It is in this background, the petitioner is once again before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his representation.

Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate, on instructions from the Deputy Conservator of Forest, submits that the petitioner’s representation dated 30.10.2019 would be duly considered in accordance with the applicable statutory framework and that appropriate orders would be passed within a reasonable time frame. The said submission is placed on record.

Having regard to the limited grievance projected by the petitioner, and in the light of the submission made by the learned Additional Government Advocate, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met if a direction is issued to the c