- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29259 WP No. 21724 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 21724 OF 2025 (GM-FOR) BETWEEN: M/S NEW SHARADA INDUSTRIES REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI.ASHOK KUMAR HIRILAL M PATEL, S/O LATE. HIRILAL MULJI PATEL, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS NO. 5876, KUNIGAL BYPASS ROAD, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. N. DINESH RAO.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMNENT OF FOREST, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR BANGALORE RURAL DIVISION DEVANAHALLI - 562 110. 3. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS KAMMAGONDANAHALLI, JALAHALLI BANGALORE RURAL DIVISION BANGALORE - 560 015. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29259 WP No. 21724 of 2025 4. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF PRINCIPAL CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (FOREST CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT) ARANYA BHAVAN, 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560003. 5. THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER NELAMANGALA BANGALORE RURAL-562123. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.RAHUL CARIAPPA., AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO- DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED ON 12.01.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-G1; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO TAKE ANY COERCIVE ACTION AGAINST PETITIONER UNTIL CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED ON 12.01.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-G1. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29259 WP No. 21724 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner’s grievance is as against the second respondent's failure to consider its applications for license to run its Unit engaged in manufacture of plywood and other allied products. The petitioner's case is that it has been in existence for over three decades; that it employs more than eighteen skilled and unskilled workers; that it has secured a license under the Factories Act, 1948 and the Karnataka Factories Rules, 1969 and such license is in vogue. The petitioner also asserts that it has the necessary registration sanctioned from the Directorate of Industries and Commerce, Government of Karnataka and BESCOM apart from the GST registration. 2. The controversy is because the State Government has issued Notification in May 2013 mandating license even from the Department of Forests for the Units engaged in manufacture of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29259 WP No. 21724 of 2025 plywood and other allied products, and according to the petitioner, it is not required to take such license because it is an existing industry. 3. If Sri P Dinesh Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, argues for directions in the light of the afore submissions, Sri Rahul Cariappa, a learned Additional Government Advocate, who takes notice for the respondents, on instructions from the respondents, submits that [i] the concerned Range Forest Officer has filed a Report after inspection of the petitioner's Unit, [ii] this Report will be placed before the State level Committee [the Authority under the Notification to consider the application for license], [iii] the State Level Committee is scheduled to meet on 21.08.2025, and [iv] an appropriate decision will be taken considering all the circumstances including the petitioner's case that the application for license is submitted way back in the year 2018 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29259 WP No. 21724 of 2025 notwithstanding its case that it need not take such license. 4. The petition must be disposed of in the light of this stand, but the question that remains for consideration is: should this Court permit the petitioner to operate the Unit based on its existing licenses and sanctions until the State level Committee takes a decision? Sri P Dinesh Rao is categorical that the petitioner imports its raw materials and there is no occasion for any allegation of wrongdoing and the petitioner has been in operation without any reason for complaint in all these years. 5. Sri Rahul Cariappa is also heard in the light of this assertion. This Court opines that the petitioner, because it is an Existing Unit and has been functioning all these years without a complaint and also because it is stated that it imports raw materials, must be in business subject to the decision of the State Level Committee, but without - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29259 WP No. 21724 of 2025 giving cause for any violation; and that if there is any cause, the Authorities must act in accordance with law. In the light of the afore, the following: ORDER [a] The petition stands disposed of directing the second to fourth respondents to ensure that the concerned Report from the Range Forest Officer is placed before the State Level Committee for consideration in its Meeting scheduled on 21.08.2025. [b] The petitioner shall operate its Unit subject to the State Level Committee's decision but in compliance with the requirements otherwise. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-