Karnataka High Court
Mr B Rudragouda vs State Of Karnataka on 4 October, 2017
Equivalent citations: AIR 2018 KARNATAKA 19, 2017 (4) AKR 738
Bench: Chief Justice, P.S.Dinesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 4th day of October, 2017
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MR SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P S DINESH KUMAR
Writ Petition Nos.43937-43938 of 2016
Connected with
Writ Petition No.44100 of 2016, Writ Petition No.47228 OF
2016, Writ Petition No.42980 of 2016, Writ Petition No.42981 of
2016, Writ Petition No.43924 of 2016, Writ Petition No.44104
of 2016, Writ Petition No.44105 of 2016, Writ Petition No.44106
of 2016, Writ Petition No.44729 of 2016, Writ Petition No.44993
of 2016, Writ Petition No.46466 of 2016, Writ Petition No.49495
of 2016, Writ Petition No.49694 of 2016, Writ Petition No.51110
of 2016, Writ Petition No.51350 of 2016, Writ Petition
No.52678 of 2016, Writ Petition No.53173 of 2016, Writ Petition
No.53986 of 2016, Writ Petition No.53987 of 2016, Writ Petition
No.55478 of 2016, Writ Petition No.858 of 2017, Writ Petition
No.13744 of 2017, Writ Petition No.43706 of 2016
Writ Petition No.43871 of 2016, Writ Petition No.43941 of 2016,
Writ Petition No.43948 of 2016, Writ Petition No.43949 of 2016
Writ Petition No.43950 of 2016, Writ Petition No.43951 of
2016, Writ Petition No.43969 of 2016, Writ Petition No.44107 of
2016, Writ Petition No.44206 of 2016, Writ Petition No.44233
of 2016,Writ Petition Nos.44253-44260 of 2016, Writ Petition
No.44270 of 2016, Writ Petition No.44271 of 2016, Writ
2
Petition No.44329 of 2016, Writ Petition No.44417 of 2016,
Writ Petition No.44727 of 2016, Writ Petition No.45967 of 2016
Writ Petition No.46231 of 2016,Writ Petition No.46232 of 2016
Writ Petition No.46233 of 2016, Writ Petition No.46234 of 2016
Writ Petition No.46532 of 2016, Writ Petition No.46533 of
2016, Writ Petition No.46815 of 2016, Writ Petition No.46963
of 2016 and Writ Petition No.47713 of 2016 (GM-FOR)
In Writ Petition Nos.43937-43938 of 2016:
BETWEEN:
Mr.B.RUDRAGOUDA
S/O LATE B KUMARAGOUDA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
No.2198, BKG HOUSE
KHB COLONY, SANDUR-583 119 ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI.S.GANESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI.K.N.SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST,
ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT
M.S.BUILDING, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF
FORESTS, ARANYA BHAVAN
18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE-560 003
3. UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE
3
4TH FLOOR, A-WING
SHASTRI BHAWAN
NEW DELHI-110 001 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
Nos.1 AND 2;
SRIMATI.ANUPAMA HEGDE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL
FOR RESPONDENT No.3)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
DECLARE THAT THE KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT) ACT
2016 [KARNATAKA ACT NO.23 OF 2016] [ANNEXURE-A] IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID AB INITIO.
In Writ Petition No.44100 of 2016:
BETWEEN:
M/s.JSW STEELS LIMITED
(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS JINDAL
VIJAYNAGAR STEEL LTD.,)
REGD. OFFICE AT 5A, Dr.G.DESHMUKH MARG
MUMBAI-400 026
BRANCH OFFICE AT:
6TH FLOOR, EAST WING
RAHEJA TOWERS, M.G.ROAD
BANGALORE-560 042
WORK OFFICE AT:
VIJAYANAGAR WORKS
P.O.VIDYANAGAR, TORANGALLU
BELLARY-583 275
4
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
Mr.MANI C. MANUEL
GENERAL MANAGER ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI.D.L.N.RAO, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRIMATI.S.R.ANURADHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY &
ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
3. DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY
BY ITS DIRECTOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001
4. THE MONITORING COMMITTEE
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
Nos.1 TO 3;
5
SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING
COMMITTEE - RESPONDENT No.4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE / QUASH
THE ACT NO.23 OF 2016 PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA
GAZETTE EXTRA-ORDINARY ON 25.7.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A
THE KARNATAKA FOREST AMENDMENT ACT 2016 TO AMEND
THE KARNATAKA FOREST ACT 1963 AS ULTRA VIRES THE
CONSTITUTION AND QUASH THE DEMAND OF FDF RAISED BY
THE MONITORING COMMITTEE IN ITS ACCEPTANCE LETTER
VIDE ANNEXURE-B DTD.8.8.2016 ETC.,
In Writ Petition No.47228 OF 2016:
BETWEEN:
PRAKASH SPONGE IRON & POWER PVT. LTD.,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT No.32
7TH 'B' MAIN ROAD, JAYANAGAR 4TH BLOCK
BANGALORE-560 011
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
SRI.R.PRAVEEN CHANDRA ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI.UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI.K.N.PHANINDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS
VIDHANA SOUDHA, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
6
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
"ARANYA BHAVAN", 18TH CROSS
MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE-560 003
4. THE MONITORING COMMITTEE
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
No.49, "KHANIJA BHAVAN", 5TH FLOOR
RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
Nos.1 TO 3;
SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING
COMMITTEE - RESPONDENT No.4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THE
KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT) ACT 2016 ENACTED
UNDER KARNATAKA ACT 23/2016 AND PUBLISHED IN THE
OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.07.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS
DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND
THEREBY STRIKE DOWN THE SAME.
7
In Writ Petition No.42980 of 2016
BETWEEN:
VEDANTA LIMITED
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS SESA STERLITE
LIMITED & SESA GOA LIMITED)
REGD. OFFICE AT P.O.BOX.125
SESAGHOR, 20, EDC COMPLEX
PATTO, PANJIM, GOA-403 001
REP. BY ITS HEAD-FINANCE
IRON ORE, KARNATAKA
SRI.ANAND PRAKASH DUBEY ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI.UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI.K.N.PHANINDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS
VIDHANA SOUDHA, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FORESTS, "ARANYA BHAVAN"
8
18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM
BANGALORE-560 003 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THE
KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT) ACT 2016 ENACTED
UNDER KARNATAKA ACT 23/2016 AND PUBLISHED IN THE
OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.07.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS
DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND
THEREBY STRIKE DOWN THE SAME.
In Writ Petition No.42981 of 2016:
BETWEEN:
SRI.R.PRAVEEN CHANDRA
S/O LATE SRI E RAMAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/O No.59, 12TH MAIN (OLD 24TH MAIN)
SRINAGAR, BANASHANKARI I STAGE
I BLOCK, BANGALORE-560 050 ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI.UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI.K.N.PHANINDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS
VIDHANA SOUDHA, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
9
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FORESTS, "ARANYA BHAVAN"
18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM
BANGALORE-560 003 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THE
KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2016 ENACTED
UNDER KARNATAKA ACT 23/2016 AND PUBLISHED IN THE
OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.07.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS
DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND
THEREBY STRIKE DOWN THE SAME.
In Writ Petition No.43924 of 2016:
BETWEEN:
KIRLOSKAR FERROUS INDUSTRIES LIMITED
BEVINAHALLI VILLAGE & POST
KOPPAL TALUK & DISTRICT
KARNATAKA-583 234
REPRESENTED BY ITS
10
SENIOR MANAGER (FINANCE)
M.K.JAGADEESH KUMAR ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI.K.RAGHAVACHARYULU, ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI.MOHAMMED RIZWAN AHAMED, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001
3. THE MONITORING COMMITTEE
BY ITS CHAIRMAN, KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
Nos.1 AND 2;
SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING
COMMITTEE - RESPONDENT No.3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THE
KARNATAKA FOREST DEVELOPMENT (AMENDMENT) ACT 2016
(ACT 23/2016) PASSED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF KARNATAKA
PUBLISHED IN THE EXTRAORDINARY GAZETTE NOTIFICATION
11
DATED 27.07.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND DISCRIMINATORY.
In Writ Petition No.44104 of 2016:
BETWEEN:
M/s.V.S.LAD & SONS
(A REGD. PARTNERSHIP FIRM)
'PRASHANTI NIVAS', KRISHNANAGAR
SANDUR-583 119
BELLARY DISTRICT
REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
Dr.EKNATH V. LAD. ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI.UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI.K.N.PHANINDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS
VIDHANA SOUDHA, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FORESTS, "ARANYA BHAVAN"
12
18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM
BANGALORE-560 003 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THE
KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2016 ENACTED
UNDER KARNATAKA ACT NO.23/2016 AND PUBLISHED IN THE
OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.07.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS
DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND
THEREBY STRIKE DOWN THE SAME.
In Writ Petition No.44105 of 2016:
BETWEEN:
M/s.HOTHUR TRADERS
(A REGD. PARTNERSHIP FIRM)
"HOTHUR GRAND", No.771
100 FEET ROAD, INDIRANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 008
REP. BY ITS PARTNER
SRI.MOHAMMED IQBAL ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI.UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI.K.N.PHANINDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS
VIDHANA SOUDHA, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
13
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FORESTS, "ARANYA BHAVAN"
18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM
BANGALORE-560 003 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THE
KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2016 ENACTED
UNDER KARNATAKA ACT NO.23/2016 AND PUBLISHED IN THE
OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.07.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS
DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND
THEREBY STRIKE DOWN THE SAME.
In Writ Petition No.44106 of 2016:
BETWEEN:
M/s.GOGGA GURUSANTHIAH & BROS.
(A REGD. PARTNERSHIP FIRM)
P.B.No.4, NEHRU CO-OPERATIVE COLONY
HOSPET-583 203, BELLARY DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
SRI.GOGGA CHANNABASAVARAJ ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI.UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI.K.N.PHANINDRA, ADVOCATE)
14
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS
VIDHANA SOUDHA, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FORESTS, "ARANYA BHAVAN"
18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM
BANGALORE-560 003 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THE
KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2016 ENACTED
UNDER KARNATAKA ACT NO.23/2016 AND PUBLISHED IN THE
OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.07.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS
DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND
THEREBY STRIKE DOWN THE SAME.
15
In Writ Petition No.44729 OF 2016:
BETWEEN:
M/s.LAKSHMINARAYANA MINING COMPANY
(A REGD. PARTNERSHIP FIRM)
OLD No.33, NEW No.100
SANNIDHI ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI
BANGALORE-560 004
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
SRI.D.N.GOPALAKRISHNA ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI.UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI.K.N.PHANINDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS
VIDHANA SOUDHA, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FORESTS, "ARANYA BHAVAN"
18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM
BANGALORE-560 003 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)
16
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THE
KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2016 ENACTED
UNDER KARNATAKA ACT NO.23/2016 AND PUBLISHED IN THE
OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.07.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A; AS
DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND
THEREBY STRIKE DOWN THE SAME.
In Writ Petition No.44993 of 2016:
BETWEEN:
GERDAU STEEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
No.304/305, WORLD TRADE CENTRE
No.6/1, Dr.RAJKUMAR ROAD
MALLESWARAM (WEST)
BANGALORE-560 055
REP. BY IT'S GENERAL MANAGER
IRON ORE & SOLID FUEL DEPARTMENT
SRI.M.C.HARISH ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI.K.RAGHAVACHARYULU, ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI.MOHAMMED RIZWAN AHAMED, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY &
ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001
17
3. THE MONITORING COMMITTEE
BY ITS CHAIRMAN, KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
Nos.1 AND 2;
SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING
COMMITTEE - RESPONDENT No.3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE "THE
KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT) ACT 2016" (ACT 23/2016)
PASSED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF KARNATAKA PUBLISHED IN
THE EXTRAORDINARY GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED
27.07.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A; AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND DISCRIMINATORY.
In Writ Petition No.46466 of 2016:
BETWEEN:
M/s.ZEENATH TRANSPORT COMPANY
(A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM)
"ZEENATH HOUSE", COWL BAZAAR
BELLARY-583 102
REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
Mr.SYED AHMED ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI.UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI.K.N.PHANINDRA, ADVOCATE)
18
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS
VIDHANA SOUDHA, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FORESTS, "ARANYA BHAVAN"
18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM
BANGALORE-560 003 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE
THE KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2016 ENACTED
UNDER KARNATAKA ACT NO.23/2016 AND PUBLISHED IN THE
OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.07.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS
DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND
THEREBY STRIKE DOWN THE SAME.
In Writ Petition No.49495 of 2016:
BETWEEN:
M/s.SLR METALIKS LTD.,
SY.No.632, NARAYANDEVARAKERE
19
LOKAPPANAHOLA, NEAR MARIYAMMANAHALLI
HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI TALUK
BELLARY-583 222
REPRESENTED BY ITS CAO
COL O.P.NEHRA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
S/O.SRI.RAN SINGH ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI.D.L.N.RAO, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI.ANIRUDH ANAND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE
VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001
2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FORESTS, ARANYA BHAVAN
18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM
BANGALORE-560 003
3. THE CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
BELLARY CIRCLE
BELLARY-583 101
4. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
BELLARY DIVISION
BELLARY-583 101
5. THE MONITORING COMMITTEE
BY ITS CHAIRMAN-DIRECTOR OF
MINES AND GEOLOGY
20
"KHANIJA BHAVAN", RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
Nos.1 TO 4;
SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING
COMMITTEE - RESPONDENT No.5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE
BY ISSUE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT THAT THE KARNATAKA
FORESTS AMENDEMENT ACT, KARNATAKA ACT 23 OF 2016
DTD:27.7.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL,
NULL AND VOID ETC.,
In Writ Petition No.49694 of 2016:
BETWEEN:
M/s.PADMAVATHI FERROUS LTD.,
UNIT AT CHIKANTAPUR, TORANAGALLU
BELLARY DISTRICT-583 275
REPRESENTED BY Mr.MAN MOHAN GOEL
CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI.D.L.N.RAO, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRIMATI.S.R.ANURADHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY &
ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
21
2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
3. DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY
BY ITS DIRECTOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001
4. THE MONITORING COMMITTEE
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
Nos.1 TO 3;
SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING
COMMITTEE - RESPONDENT No.4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE / QUASH
THE ACT NO.23 OF 2016 PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA
GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY ON 25.07.2016; THE KARNATAKA
FOREST AMENDMENT ACT 2016 TO AMEND THE KARNATAKA
FOREST ACT 1963 AS ULTRA VIRES THE CONSTITUTION ETC.,
In Writ Petition No.51110 of 2016:
BETWEEN:
M/s.ELECTROTHERM (INDIA) LTD.,
A-1, SKYLARK APARTMENTS
22
SATELLITE ROAD, SATELLITE
AHMEDABAD-380 015
REPRESENTED BY SALES MANAGER
Mr.MUKESH VOHRA ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI.D.L.N.RAO, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI.ANIRUDH ANAND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE
VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001
2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FORESTS, ARANYA BHAVAN
18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM
BANGALORE-560 003
3. THE CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
BELLARY CIRCLE
BELLARY-583 101
4. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
BELLARY DIVISION
BELLARY-583 101
5. THE MONITORING COMMITTEE
BY ITS CHAIRMAN-DIRECTOR OF
MINES AND GEOLOGY
"KHANIJA BHAVAN"
RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,
23
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
Nos.1 TO 4;
SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING
COMMITTEE - RESPONDENT No.5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE
BY ISSUE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT THAT THE KARNATAKA
FORESTS AMENDEMENT ACT, KARNATAKA ACT 23 OF 2016
DTD:27.7.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL NULL
AND VOID ETC.,
In Writ Petition No.51350 of 2016:
BETWEEN:
M/s.STAR MINERALS
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE
AT GROUND FLOOR, "ANUGRAHA"
PLOT No.5, KALYAAN NAGAR
CHITWADGI, HOSPET-583 211
REPRESENTED BY SMT.A.SAVITHRI ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI.MANU KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST,
ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT
M.S.BUILDING, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
ARANYA BHAVAN
18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM
BENGALURU-560 003
24
3. UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE
4TH FLOOR, A-WING
SHASTRI BHAWAN
NEW DELHI-110 001
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
Nos.1 AND 2;
SRIMATI.ANUPAMA HEGDE, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL
FOR RESPONDENT No.3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE
THAT THE KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2016
(KARNATAKA ACT NO.23 OF 2016) (ANNEXURE-A) IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID AB INITIO.
In Writ Petition No.52678 of 2016:
BETWEEN:
M/s.SRI.SHIV SHAKTI STEEL & ALLOYS
REGD. OFF AT: 21-2-636/1
URDUGALLI, PATHERGATTI
HYDERABAD-573 061
REP. BY ITS PARTNER
KRISHNA KUMAR ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI.BADRI VISHAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
25
DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS
VIDHANA SOUDHA
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
"ARANYA BHAVAN", 18TH CROSS
MALLESWARAM
BANGALORE-560 003 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE
THE KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2016 ENACTED
UNDER KARNATAKA ACT NO.23/2016 AND PUBLISHED IN THE
OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.07.2016 ISSUED BY R-1 VIDE
ANNEXURE-C AS DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY AND
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THEREBY STRIKE DOWN THE SAME.
In Writ Petition No.53173 of 2016:
BETWEEN:
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED
VISVESVARAYA IRON & STEEL PLANT
BHADRAVATHI-577 301
INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT
26
1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT ISPAT BHAVAN, LODHI ROAD
NEW DELHI-110 003
REPRESENTED BY SHRI.H.N.VENKATESH
S/O.H.D.NAGAPPA GOWDA
HINDU, AGED 57 YEARS
RESIDENT OF BHADRAVATHI
ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (LAW)
& THE GPA HOLDER ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI.K.SACHINDRA KARANTH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS, ECOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA
VIDHANA VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001
2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF
FORESTS, ARANYA BHAVAN
18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM
BANGALORE-560 003
3. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
BHADRAVATHI CIRCLE
BHADRAVATHI-577 301 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE
KARNATAKA FOREST [AMENDMENT] ACT 2016, ACT 23 OF 2016
27
[ANNEXURE-A] AND THE FOREST [AMENDMENT] ACT 2015, ACT
41/2015 [ANNEXURE-G] ARE ILLEGAL AND ULTRAVIRES ETC.,
In Writ Petition No.53986 of 2016:
BETWEEN:
M/s.REACTIVE METALS OF INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
REGD. OFF AT: ROOM No.612, 6TH FLOOR
TARAMANDAL COMPLEX, SAIFABAD
HYDERABAD-500 004
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR
ANAND KUMAR KEDIA ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI.H.SRINIVAS RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS
VIDHANA SOUDHA
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY
AND ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FORESTS, "ARANYA BHAVAN"
18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE-560 003 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
28
SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE
THE KARNATAKA FOREST [AMENDMENT] ACT, 2016 ENACTED
UNDER KARNATAKA ACT NO.23 OF 2016 AND PUBLISHED IN
THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.7.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AS
DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND
THEREBY STRIKE DOWN THE SAME.
In Writ Petition No.53987 of 2016:
BETWEEN:
M/s.JEEVAKA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED
REGD. OFF AT:15-9-360
MAHABOOB GUNJ, HYDERABAD-500 012
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR
ABHISHEK AGARWAL ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI.H.SRINIVAS RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS
VIDHANA SOUDHA
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY
AND ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
29
3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FORESTS, "ARANYA BHAVAN"
18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE-560 003 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE
THE KARNATAKA FOREST [AMENDMENT] ACT, 2016 ENACTED
UNDER KARNATAKA ACT NO.23/2016 AND PUBLISHED IN THE
OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.7.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AS
DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND
THEREBY STRIKE DOWN THE SAME.
In Writ Petition No.55478 of 2016:
BETWEEN:
MYSORE MINERALS LIMITED
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
(GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING)
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
TTMC BUILDING, 'A' BLOCK, 5TH FLOOR
BMTC, SHANTINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027
REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS
GENERAL MANAGER (MKT)
Mr.G.KUMARASWAMY ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI.H.N.NARENDRA DEV, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS
30
HAVING OFFICE AT VIDHANA SOUDHA
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
REPRESENTED BY THE
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST
ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT
HAVING OFFICE AT M.S.BUILDING
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY THE
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
3. THE MONITORING COMMITTEE
(CONSTITUTED BY THE HON'BLE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)
HAVING OFFICE AT DEPARTMENT OF MINES
AND GEOLOGY No.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN
5TH FLOOR, RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001
REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS
CHAIRMAN ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
Nos.1 AND 2;
SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING
COMMITTEE - RESPONDENT No.3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2016 AT ANNEXURE-A
31
AS BEING ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, AND ULTRA VIRES THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ETC.,
In Writ Petition No.858 of 2017:
BETWEEN:
M/s.JSW STEELS LIMITED SALEM WORKS
(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS SOUTHERN IRON
AND STEELS COMPANY LTD.,)
REGD. OFFICE AT
5A, Dr.G.DESHMUKH MARG
MUMBAI-400 026
BRANCH OFFICE AT:
6TH FLOOR, EAST WING
RAHEJA TOWERS, M.G.ROAD
BANGALORE-560 042
UNITS AT:
POTTANERI, MECHERI, SALEM
TAMIL NADU, REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
Mr.P.BOOPALAN
VICE PRESIDENT (F & A) ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI.D.L.N.RAO, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRIMATI.S.R.ANURADHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY &
ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
32
2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
3. DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY
BY ITS DIRECTOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001
4. THE MONITORING COMMITTEE
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
Nos.1 TO 3;
SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING
COMMITTEE - RESPONDENT No.4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE / QUASH
THE ACT NO.23 OF 2016 PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA
GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY ON 27.7.2016 ANNEXURE-A THE
KARNATAKA FOREST AMENDMENT ACT 2016 TO AMEND THE
KARNATAKA FOREST ACT 1963 AS ULTRA VIRES THE
CONSTITUTION ETC.,
33
In Writ Petition No.13744 of 2017:
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA IRON & STEEL
MANUFACTURING ASSOCIATION
REGISTERED OFFICE:
VIJAYA BANK BUILDING
VIJAY VITTAL NAGAR, TORANGALLU
SANDUR TALUK, DISTRICT-BELLARY
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
Mr.MANI MANUEL ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI.D.L.N.RAO, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI.ANIRUDH ANAND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY &
ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FORESTS, ARANYA BHAVAN
18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM
BANGALORE-560 003
3. THE CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
BELLARY CIRCLE, BELLARY-583 101
4. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
BELLARY DIVISION, BELLARY-583 101
34
5. THE MONITORING COMMITTEE
BY ITS CHAIRMAN-DIRECTOR OF MINES
AND GEOLOGY, "KHANIJA BHAVAN"
RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001
6. DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY
BY ITS DIRECTOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
Nos.1 TO 4 AND 6;
SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING
COMMITTEE - RESPONDENT No.5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE/ QUASH
THE ACT NO.23/2016 PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA GAZETTE
EXTRAORDINARY ON 27.7.2016 i.e. THE KARNATAKA FOREST
[AMENDMENT] ACT 2016 TO AMEND THE KARNATAKA FOREST
ACT 1963 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS ULTRA VIRES THE
CONSTITUTION ETC.,
In Writ Petition No.43706 of 2016
BETWEEN:
M/s.DODDANNAVAR BROTHERS
(REGD. PARTNERSHIP FIRM)
DODDANNAVAR COMPOUND
NEAR FORT, BELGAUM-590 016
35
REP. BY ITS G.P.A. HOLDER
SRI.RACHAPPA M. SARADAGI ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI.UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI.K.N.PHANINDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS
VIDHANA SOUDHA
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FORESTS, "ARANYA BHAVAN"
18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM
BANGALORE-560 003
4. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
BAGALKOT DIVISION
BAGALKOT-588 301 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THE
KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT) ACT 2016 ENACTED
36
UNDER KARNATAKA ACT NO.23 OF 2016 AND PUBLISHED IN
THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.7.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS
DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND
THEREBY STRIKE DOWN THE SAME AND ETC.,
In Writ Petition No.43871 of 2016:
BETWEEN:
SATHVAHANA ISPAT LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT 1956 & HAVING ITS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT
No.314, SRI.RAMAKRISHNA TOWER
NAGARJUNA NAGAR
HYDERABAD-500 073
HAVING ITS INDUSTRY AT BELLARY
REPRESENTED BY ITS AGM (HR & ADMN) ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI.K.RAGHAVACHARYULU, ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI.D.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS
VIDHANA SOUDHA
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
37
3. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FOREST, ARANYA BHAVAN
18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE-560 003
4. THE MONITORING COMMITTEE
BY ITS CHAIRMAN, KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001
(AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER COURT ORDER
DATED 18.8.16) ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
Nos.1 TO 3;
SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING
COMMITTEE - RESPONDENT No.4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT
KARNATAKA FOREST [AMENDMENT] ACT, 2016 [ACT NO.23 OF
2016] IS ULTRA VIRES THE CONSTITUTION AND AGAINST BASIC
STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ALSO ULTRAVIRES
PROVISIONS OF THE FOREST CONSERVATION ACT, 1980 AND
THE RULES AND ORDERS MADE THEREUNDER OR THEREON
AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH AMENDMENT ACT PRODUCED AS
ANNEXURE-A DTD.27.7.2016 AND ETC.,
In Writ Petition No.43941 of 2016:
BETWEEN:
BELLARY ISPAT (P) LTD.,
PLOT No.16, KIADB MUNDARGI BELLARY
BELLARY-583 102
HAVING ITS INDUSTRY AT BELLARY
38
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI.K.RAGHAVACHARYULU, ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI.D.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS
VIDHANA SOUDHA
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
3. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FORESTS, ARANYA BHAVAN
18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU -560 003
4. THE MONITORING COMMITTEE
REPT. ITS CHAIRMAN, KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001
(AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER COURT ORDER
DATED 18.8.16) ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,
39
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
Nos.1 TO 3;
SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING
COMMITTEE - RESPONDENT No.4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT
KARNATAKA FOREST [AMENDMENT] ACT, 2016 [ACT NO.23 OF
2016] IS ULTRA VIRES THE CONSTITUTION AND AGAINST BASIC
STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ALSO ULTRAVIRES
PROVISIONS OF THE FOREST CONSERVATION ACT, 1980 AND
THE RULES AND ORDERS MADE THEREUNDER OR THEREON
AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH AMENDMENT ACT PRODUCED AS
ANNEXURE-A DTD.27.7.2016 AND ETC.,
In Writ Petition No.43948 of 2016:
BETWEEN:
BALAJISWAMY PREMIUM STEELS (P) LTD
PLOT 16, JIADB, INDUSTRIAL AREA
2ND PHASE, BELLARY-583 102
HAVING ITS INDUSTRY AT BELLARY
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI.K.RAGHAVACHARYULU, ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI.D.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
40
DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS
VIDHANA SOUDHA
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
3. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FOREST, ARANYA BHAVAN
18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU -560 003
4. THE MONITORING COMMITTEE
REPT. ITS CHAIRMAN, KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001
(AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER COURT ORDER
DATED 18.8.16) ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
Nos.1 TO 3;
SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING
COMMITTEE - RESPONDENT No.4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT
KARNATAKA FOREST [AMENDMENT] ACT, 2016 [ACT NO.23 OF
2016] IS ULTRA VIRES THE CONSTITUTION AND AGAINST BASIC
41
STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ALSO ULTRAVIRES
PROVISIONS OF THE FOREST CONSERVATION ACT, 1980 AND
THE RULES AND ORDERS MADE THEREUNDER OR THEREON
AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH AMENDMENT ACT PRODUCED AS
ANNEXURE-A DTD.27.7.2016 AND ETC.,
In Writ Petition No.43949 of 2016:
BETWEEN:
MUKUND LIMITED
No.226, BAJAJ BHAVAN
JAMNALAL BAJAJ MARG
NARIMON POINT
MUMBAI-400 021
HAVING ITS INDUSTRY AT BELLARY
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF LIOSONING OFFICER ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI.K.RAGHAVACHARYULU, ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI.D.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS
VIDHANA SOUDHA
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY AND
42
ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
3. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FOREST, ARANYA BHAVAN
18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU -560 003
4. THE MONITORING COMMITTEE
REPT. ITS CHAIRMAN, KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001
(AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER COURT ORDER
DATED 18.8.16) ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
Nos.1 TO 3;
SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING
COMMITTEE - RESPONDENT No.4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT
KARNATAKA FOREST [AMENDMENT] ACT, 2016 [ACT NO.23 OF
2016] IS ULTRA VIRES THE CONSTITUTION AND AGAINST BASIC
STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ALSO ULTRAVIRES
PROVISIONS OF THE FOREST CONSERVATION ACT, 1980 AND
THE RULES AND ORDERS MADE THEREUNDER OR THEREON
AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH AMENDMENT ACT PRODUCED AS
ANNEXURE-A DTD.27.7.2016 AND ETC.,
43
In Writ Petition No.43950 of 2016:
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA SPONGE IRON MANUFACTURERS
ASSOCIATION, No.39/1B/27-4, BLOCK No.7
TALUR ROAD, OPP:SAKTHI NURSING HOME
PARVATHI NAGAR, BELLARY-583 101
HAVING ITS INDUSTRY AT BELLARY
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI.K.RAGHAVACHARYULU, ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI.D.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS
VIDHANA SOUDHA
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
3. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FOREST, ARANYA BHAVAN
18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU -560 003
4. THE MONITORING COMMITTEE
REPT. ITS CHAIRMAN, KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001
44
(AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER COURT ORDER
DATED 18.8.16) ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
Nos.1 TO 3;
SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING
COMMITTEE - RESPONDENT No.4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT
KARNATAKA FOREST [AMENDMENT] ACT 2016 [ACT NO.23 OF
2016] IS ULTRA VIRES THE CONSTITUTIONS AND AGAINST
BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ALSO
ULTRAVIRES PROVISIONS OF THE FOREST CONSERVATION
ACT, 1980 AND THE RULES AND ORDERS MADE THEREUNDER
OR THEREON AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH AMENDMENT ACT
AT ANNEXURE-A DATED 27.07.2016 AND ETC.,
In Writ Petition No.43951 of 2016:
BETWEEN:
IRON ORE END USERS ASSOCIATION
HEAD OFFICE, POST BOX.No.34
BHUBANESWAR-751 001
HAVING ITS INDUSTRY AT BELLARY
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI.K.RAGHAVACHARYULU, ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI.D.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
45
DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS
VIDHANA SOUDHA
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
3. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FOREST, ARANYA BHAVAN
18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU -560 003
4. MONITORING COMMITTEE
REPT. ITS CHAIRMAN, KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001
(AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER COURT ORDER
DATED 18.8.16) ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
Nos.1 TO 3;
SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING
COMMITTEE - RESPONDENT No.4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT
KARNATAKA FOREST [AMENDMENT] ACT, 2016 [ACT NO.23 OF
2016] IS ULTRA VIRES THE CONSTITUTIONS AND AGAINST
BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ALSO
46
ULTRAVIRES PROVISIONS OF THE FOREST CONSERVATION
ACT, 1980 AND THE RULES AND ORDERS MADE THEREUNDER
OR THEREON AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH AMENDMENT ACT
PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A DATED 27.07.2016 AND ETC.,
In Writ Petition No.43969 of 2016:
BETWEEN:
M/s.BMM ISPAT LTD.,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT, 1956
WITH ITS OFFICE AT No.101
1ST FLOOR, "PRIDE ELITE"
No.10, MUSEUM ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER-PR
Mr.SILAS NERALLA ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI.K.DHIRAJ KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFIARS
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001
2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
3. THE MONITORING COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR
KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001
47
4. MSTC LIMITED
A GOVT. OF INDIA ENTERPRISES
REPRESENTED ITS CHIEF MANAGER
3RD FLOOR, KAREEM TOWER
19/5 & 19/6, CUNNINGHAM ROAD
BANGALORE-560 052
5. THE DIRECTOR AND COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001
6. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS
RADIO PARK, COWL BAZAR
BELLARY-583 102
7. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS
HOLALKERE ROAD
CHITRADURGA-577 501 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
Nos.1, 2, 5, 6 AND 7;
SHRI.B.C.SEETHARAM RAO, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
No.4;
SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING
COMMITTEE FOR RESPONDENT No.3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT ACT) 2016 PUBLISHED IN
48
OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.07.2016 (THE KARNATAKA ACT
NO.23/2016, AMENDING THE KARNATAKA FOREST ACT 1963),
AT ANNEXURE-H AND TO DECALRE THE SAME TO BE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
In Writ Petition No.44107 of 2016:
BETWEEN:
SRIKALAHASTHI PIPES LIMITED
RACHAGUNNERI-517 641
SRIKALAHASTHI MANDAL
CHITTOOR DISTRICT
ANDHRA PRADESH
REPRESENTED BY ITS
Sr.GENERAL MANAGER (COMMERCIAL)
SRI.KRISHNA KANODIA ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI.UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI.K.N.PHANINDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS
VIDHANA SOUDHA
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE -560 001
3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FORESTS, "ARANYA BHAVAN"
49
18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM
BANGALORE-560 003
4. THE MONITORING COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
5TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001
(CAUSE TITLE AMENDED AND 4TH RESPONDENT
IMPLEADED WITH LEAVE OF THE COURT VIDE
ORDER DATED 23.8.16) ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
Nos.1 TO 3;
SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING
COMMITTEE FOR RESPONDENT No.4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THE
KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2016 ENACTED
UNDER KARNATAKA ACT NO.23/2016 AND PUBLISHED IN THE
OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.07.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS
DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND
THEREBY STRIKE DOWN THE SAME.
In Writ Petition No.44206 of 2016:
BETWEEN:
JANKI CROP LTD
CHITTOR ROAD, BHILWARA
RAJASTHAN-311 001
HAVING ITS INDUSTRY AT BELLARY
50
REPRESENTED BY ITS CORPORATE
RELATIONS OFFICER ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI.K.RAGHAVACHARYULU, ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI.D.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS
VIDHANA SOUDHA, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST
ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT
M.S.BUILDING, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
3. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FOREST, ARANYA BHAVAN
18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU-560 003
4. THE MONITORING COMMITTEE
BY ITS CHAIRMAN
KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE
(AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER COURT ORDER
DATED 18.8.16) ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,
51
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
Nos.1 TO 3;
SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING
COMMITTEE FOR RESPONDENT No.4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT
KARNATAKA FOREST [AMENDMENT] ACT 2016 [ACT NO.23 OF
2016] IS ULTRA VIRES THE CONSTITUTIONS AND AGAINST
BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ALSO
ULTRAVIRES PROVISIONS OF THE FOREST CONSERVATION
ACT, 1980 AND THE RULES AND ORDERS MADE THEREUNDER
OR THEREON AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH AMENDMENT ACT
AT ANNEXURE-A DATED 27.07.2016.
In Writ Petition No.44233 of 2016:
BETWEEN:
JAI RAJ ISPAT LIMITED
HAVING ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
AT No.8, PHASE III, IDA, JEEDIMETLA
HYDERABAD-500 055, ANDHRA PRADESH
REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER
(LEGAL), SRI.KATAKAM SUNEEL BABU ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI.UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI.K.N.PHANINDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS
VIDHANA SOUDHA, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
52
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST
ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT
M.S.BUILDING, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FORESTS, "ARANYA BHAVAN"
18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM
BANGALORE-560 003
4. THE MONITORING COMMITTEE
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
No.49, "KHANIJA BHAVAN"
5TH FLOOR, RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
Nos.1 TO 3;
SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING
COMMITTEE FOR RESPONDENT No.4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECTION
DECLARE THE KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT) ACT 2016
ENACTED UNDER KARNATAKA ACT NO.23 OF 2016 AND
PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.7.2016 VIDE
ANNEXURE-A AS DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY AND
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THEREBY STRIKE DOWN THE SAME.
53
In Writ Petition Nos.44253-44260 of 2016:
BETWEEN:
1. FEDERATION OF INDIAN MINING
INDUSTRIES, SOUTHERN REGION
No.300/1B, 16TH CROSS
SADASHIVNAGAR
BANGALORE-560 080
REPRESENTED BY AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
Mr.HOLAVANAHALLI MIRZA KHYUM ALI
2. RAMAGAD MINERALS AND MINING LIMITED
(IYLI MINES), BALDOTA ENCLAVE
ABHERAJ BALDOTA ROAD
HOSAPETE-583 203
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
Mr.RAHUL KUMAR N. BALDOTA
3. MSPL LIMITED
(VYASANAKERI IRON ORE MINES)
BALDOTA ENCLAVE, ABHERAJ BALDOTA ROAD
HOSAPETE-583 203
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SINGATORY
Mr.ANJU GOPALRAO DESAI
4. M/s.P.VENGANNA SETTY AND BROTHERS
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, BALDOTA ENCLAVE
ABHERAJ BALDOTA ROAD
HOSAPETE-583 203
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SINGATORY
Mr.ANJU GOPALRAO DESAI
5. MINERAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED
KHANIJA BHAVAN, WEST WING
3RD FLOOR, No.49, RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001
54
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
Mr.BASANT PODDAR
6. Mr.BASANT PODDAR
S/O LATE Mr K P PODDAR
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
RESIDING AT No.487, 10TH CROSS
RMV EXTENSION
BANGALORE-560 080
7. M/s.P.BALASUBBA SETTY & SON
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
D.No.2078, P.B.No.03
22ND WARD, J.P.NAGAR
BALLARI ROAD, HOSAPETE-583 201
BALLARI DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED
SINGATORY, Mr.P.V.PRAKASH
8. M/s.R.PAMPAPATHY AARPEE IRON ORE MINES
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, 24/151
BELLARY ROAD, HOSPET-583 201
BELLARY DISTRICT
KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
R.SHARANABASAVESWARA ...PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI.S.GANESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI.ADITHYA NARAYAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
55
2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FORESTS, ARANYA BHAVAN
18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE-560 003
3. UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE
4TH FLOOR A-WING
SHASTRI BHAWAN
NEW DELHI-110 001
4. MONITORING COMMITTEE
KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
Nos.1 AND 2;
SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING
COMMITTEE FOR RESPONDENT No.4)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
DECLARE THAT THE KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT) ACT
2016 [KARNATAKA ACT NO.23 OF 2016] [ANNEXURE-A] IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID AB INITIO.
In Writ Petition No.44270 of 2016:
BETWEEN:
SRI.R.CHARUCHANDRA
S/O.Dr.NAGAN GOWDA
56
AGED AROUND 78 YEARS
R/O.Dr.NAGAN GOWDA GARDENS
STATION ROAD, HOSPET-583 201
BELLARY DISTRICT ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI.D.L.N.RAO, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI.ANIRUDH ANAND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FORESTS, ARANYA BHAVAN
18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM
BANGALORE-560 003
3. THE CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
BELLARY CIRCLE
BELLARY-583 101
4. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
BELLARY DIVISION
BELLARY-583 101
5. THE MONITORING COMMITTEE
BY ITS CHAIRMAN-DIRECTOR OF
MINES AND GEOLOGY
"KHANIJA BHAVAN", RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
57
SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
Nos.1 TO 4;
SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING
COMMITTEE - RESPONDENT No.5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE
BY ISSUE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT, THAT THE KARNATAKA
FORESTS AMENDMENT ACT, KARNATAKA ACT 23 OF 2016
DTD:27.7.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL,
NULL AND VOID ETC.,
In Writ Petition No.44271 of 2016:
BETWEEN:
M/s.HARE KRISHNA METALICS PVT. LTD.,
SY No.20, KASANKANDI ROAD
HIREBAGANAL, KOPPAL-583 228
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
Mr.SANJAY MALPANI
S/O.SRI.B.N.MALPANI ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI.D.L.N.RAO, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI.ANIRUDH ANAND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FORESTS, ARANYA BHAVAN
58
18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM
BANGALORE-560 003
3. THE CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
BELLARY CIRCLE
BELLARY-583 101
4. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
BELLARY DIVISION
BELLARY-583 101
5. THE MONITORING COMMITTEE
BY ITS CHAIRMAN-DIRECTOR OF
MINES AND GEOLOGY
"KHANIJA BHAVAN", RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
Nos.1 TO 4;
SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING
COMMITTEE - RESPONDENT No.5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE
THAT THE KARNATAKA FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, KARNATAKA
ACT 23/2016 DTD.27.7.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, NULL AND VOID.
In Writ Petition No.44329 of 2016:
BETWEEN:
M/s.VEERABHADRAPPA SANGAPPA AND
COMPANY, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
59
'VESCO HOUSE', # 2/138, BELLARY ROAD
SANDUR-583 119, BELLARY DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED
SIGNATORY, Mr.K.S.NAGARAJ ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI.S.GANESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI.K.N.SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST
ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT
M.S.BUILDING, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF
FORESTS, ARANYA BHAVAN
18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE-560 003
3. UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE
4TH FLOOR, A-WING
SHASTRI BHAWAN
NEW DELHI-110 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
4. MONITORING COMMITTEE
KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
60
SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
Nos.1 AND 2;
SRIMATI.ANUPAMA HEGDE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL
FOR RESPONDENT No.3;
SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING
COMMITTEE - RESPONDENT No.4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO THE
KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2016 [KARNATAKA
ACT NO.23/2016] [ANNEXURE-A] IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND
VOID AB INITIO.
In Writ Petition No.44417 of 2016:
BETWEEN:
M/s.SREE KUMARASWAMY MINERAL EXPORTS
PVT. LTD., REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
SRI.MANJUNATH P
#87, S.V.COLONY
NEAR KUMARASWAMY TEMPLE
CLUB ROAD, BELLARY-583 104 ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI.D.L.N.RAO, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI.ANIRUDH ANAND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
61
2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FORESTS, ARANYA BHAVAN
18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM
BANGALORE-560 003
3. THE CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
BELLARY CIRCLE
BELLARY-583 101
4. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
BELLARY DIVISION
BELLARY-583 101
5. THE MONITORING COMMITTEE
BY ITS CHAIRMAN-DIRECTOR OF
MINES AND GEOLOGY
"KHANIJA BHAVAN", RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
Nos.1 TO 4;
SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING
COMMITTEE - RESPONDENT No.5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE
BY ISSUE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT, THAT THE KARNATAKA
FORESTS AMENDMENT ACT, KARNATAKA ACT 23 OF 2016
DTD:27.7.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL,
NULL AND VOID ETC.,
62
In Writ Petition No.44727 of 2016:
BETWEEN:
KALYANI STEELS LIMITED
HOSPET ROAD, GINIGERA
KOPPAL DISTRICT-583 231
REPRESENTED BY ASST. GENERAL MANAGER
SRI.ANAND SHIRSAT
AGED 51 YEARS ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI.UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI.K.N.PHANINDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS
VIDHANA SOUDHA, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST
ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT
M.S.BUILDING, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FORESTS, "ARANYA BHAVAN"
18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM
BANGALORE-560 003
4. THE MONITORING COMMITTEE
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
No.49, "KHANIJA BHAVAN"
63
5TH FLOOR, RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
Nos.1 TO 3;
SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING
COMMITTEE - RESPONDENT No.4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THE
KARNATAKA FOREST [AMENDMENT] ACT, 2016 ENACTED
UNDER KARNATAKA ACT NO.23 OF 2016 AND PUBLISHED IN
THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.7.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS
DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND
THEREBY STRIKE DOWN THE SAME.
In Writ Petition No.45967 of 2016
BETWEEN:
M/s.M.HANUMANTHA RAO
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
ARUN CHIRANIA
S/O.SHYAM SUNDAR CHIRANIA
AGE: 48 YEARS, No.37, MAIN ROAD
PATEL NAGAR, BELLARY-583 101 ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI.K.DHIRAJ KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
64
DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFIARS
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001
2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
3. THE MONITORING COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR
KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001
4. MSTC LIMITED
A GOVT. OF INDIA ENTERPRISES
REPRESENTED ITS CHIEF MANAGER
3RD FLOOR, KAREEM TOWER
19/5 & 19/6, CUNNINGHAM ROAD
BANGALORE-560 052
5. THE DIRECTOR AND COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001
6. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS
RADIO PARK, COWL BAZAR
BELLARY-583 102 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
Nos.1, 2, 5 AND 6;
65
SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING
COMMITTEE FOR RESPONDENT No.3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT ACT) 2016 PUBLISHED IN
OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.07.2016 (THE KARNATAKA ACT
NO.23/2016, AMENDING THE KARNATAKA FOREST ACT 1963),
COPYOF THE WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H AND TO
DECALRE THE SAME TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
In Writ Petition No.46231 of 2016:
BETWEEN:
VENKATAKA SAI ISPAT
INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
No.301, P.S.RESIDENCY
JAI HIND ENCLAVE, MADHAPUR
HYDERABAD, TELENGANA-500 081
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
Mr.K.L.N.PRASAD ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI.K.ARAVIND KAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS
VIDHANA SOUDHA, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
2. DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY
AND ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
66
BANGALORE-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FORESTS, "ARANYA BHAVAN"
18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU-560 003
4. DISTRICT CONSERVATIVE FOREST OFFICER
KARNATAKA FOREST DEPARTMENT
BELLARY DIVISION
BELLARY-583 201 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THE
KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2016 PUBLISHED IN
THE OFFICAL GAZETTE ON 27.07.2016 AT ANNEXURE-K AS
DISCRIMINATORY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THEREBY
STRIKE IT DOWN BY ISSUING.
In Writ Petition No.46232 of 2016:
BETWEEN:
HINDUSTAN CALCINED METALS PRIVATE LIMITED
REGD OFFE: 60/356-A, MODI BHAVAN
HOSPET ROAD, ALLIPURA
BELLARY-583 105
REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER
SRI.D.V.MAHESH KUMAR ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI.H.SRINIVAS RAO, ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.BADRI VISHAL, ADVOCATE)
67
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS
VIDHANA SOUDHA, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FOREST, "ARANYA BHAVAN"
18TH CROSS MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE-560 003 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE
THE KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2016 ENACTED
UNDER KARNATAKA ACT NO.23/2016 AND PUBLISHED IN THE
OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.07.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AS
DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND
THEREBY STRIKE DOWN THE SAME.
In Writ Petition No.46233 of 2016:
BETWEEN:
MINERA STEEL & POWER PRIVATE LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
68
SRI.TANVEER AHMED
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
811/2, NH63, HOSPET ROAD
ALIPUR, BELLARY-583 105 ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI.H.SRINIVAS RAO, ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.BADRI VISHAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS
VIDHANA SOUDHA, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FORESTS, "ARANYA BHAVAN"
18TH CROSS MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE-560 003 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE
THE KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2016 ENACTED
UNDER KARNATAKA ACT NO.23/2016 AND PUBLISHED IN THE
OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.07.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AS
69
DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND
THEREBY STRIKE DOWN THE SAME.
In Writ Petition No.46234 of 2016
BETWEEN:
BIOP STEELS AND POWER PRIVATE LIMITED
REGD. OFF AT: MODI BHAVAN
HOSPET ROAD, ALLIPUR
BELLARY-583 104
REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER
SRI.D.V.MAHESH KUMAR ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI.H.SRINIVAS RAO, ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.BADRI VISHAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS
VIDHANA SOUDHA, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FORESTS, "ARANYA BHAVAN"
18TH CROSS MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE-560 003 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
70
SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE
THE KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2016 ENACTED
UNDER KARNATAKA ACT NO.23/2016 AND PUBLISHED IN THE
OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.07.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AS
DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND
THEREBY STRIKE DOWN THE SAME.
In Writ Petition No.46532 of 2016:
BETWEEN:
M/s.THAKUR INDUSTRIES
No.F-2, 1ST FLOOR, R.R.KUTEERA
DOOR No.48, 29TH WARD
BDCC BANK COLONY, M.J.NAGAR
HOSPET-583 201
BELLARY DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY PARTNER
Mr.M.PRAKASH LALWANI ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI.D.L.N.RAO, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI.ANIRUDH ANAND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST
ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT
M.S.BUILDING, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
71
2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FORESTS, ARANYA BHAVAN
18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM
BANGALORE-560 003
3. THE CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
BELLARY CIRCLE
BELLARY-583 101
4. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
BELLARY DIVISION
BELLARY-583 101
5. THE MONITORING COMMITTEE
BY ITS CHAIRMAN-DIRECTOR OF MINES
AND GEOLOGY, "KHANIJA BHAVAN"
RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
Nos.1 TO 4;
SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING
COMMITTEE FOR RESPONDENT No.5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE
BY ISSUE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT THAT THE KARNATAKA
FORESTS AMENDMENT ACT, KARNATAKA ACT 23 OF 2016
DTD:27.7.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL NULL
AND VOID ETC.,
72
In Writ Petition No.46533 of 2016:
BETWEEN:
M/s.KEJ MINERALS PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956
# 17, SRI.RAGHAVENDRA LAYOUT
'D'-BLOCK, OPP. M.E.I., TUMKUR ROAD
YESHWANTHPUR
BANGALORE-560 022
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
NAROTTAM KEJRIWAL
S/O.SHRI.N.P.KEJRIWAL ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI.D.L.N.RAO, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI.ANIRUDH ANAND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST
ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT
M.S.BUILDING, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FORESTS, ARANYA BHAVAN
18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM
BANGALORE-560 003
3. THE CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
BELLARY CIRCLE
BELLARY-583 101
73
4. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
BELLARY DIVISION
BELLARY-583 101
5. THE MONITORING COMMITTEE
BY ITS CHAIRMAN-DIRECTOR OF
MINES AND GEOLOGY
"KHANIJA BHAVAN", RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
Nos.1 TO 4;
SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING
COMMITTEE FOR RESPONDENT No.5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE
BY ISSUE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT THAT THE KARNATAKA
FORESTS AMENDMENT ACT, KARNATAKA ACT 23/2016 DATED
27.07.2016 AT ANNEXURE-A IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL , NULL AND
VOID ETC.,
In Writ Petition No.46815 of 2016:
BETWEEN:
MARUTI ISPAT & ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED
5-4-83, RAMA TOWERS, 2ND FLOOR
TSK CHAMBERS, M.G.ROAD
SECUNDERABAD-500 003
ANDHRA PRADESH, INDIA
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI.BADRI VISHAL, ADVOCATE)
74
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS
VIDHANA SOUDHA, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FORESTS, "ARANYA BHAVAN"
18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE-560 003 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE
THE KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2016 ENACTED
UNDER KARNATAKA ACT NO.23/2016 AND PUBLISHED IN THE
OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.07.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AS
DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND
THEREBY STRIKE DOWN THE SAME.
In Writ Petition No.46963 of 2016:
BETWEEN:
M/s.S.V.CHETTY IRON ORE MINES
OLD INCOME TAX OFFICE
75
BUILDING, NEAR SAHAKARI KALYANA MANTAPA
N.C.COLONY, HOSPET-583 201
REPRESENTED BY Mr.MALLANAGOUDA ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI.M.V.SUNDER RAMAN, ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.K.ARUN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS
VIDHANA SOUDHA, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST ECOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FORESTS, "ARANYA BHAVAN"
18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE-560 003 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE
THE KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2016 ENACTED
UNDER KARNATAKA ACT NO.23 OF 2016 AND PUBLISHED IN
THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.07.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS
DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY, AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
76
In Writ Petition No.47713 of 2016:
BETWEEN:
SRI.V.N.K.MENON
S/O LATE SRI S K NAIR
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
VILLA No.159, 1ST PHASE
"ADARSH PALM RETREAT"
DEVERABISANAHALLI BELANDUR POST
OUTER RING ROAD
BANGALORE-560 103
AND HAVING MINES OFFICE AT
No.6, KHB COLONY, SANDUR-583 119
BELLARY DISTRICT ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI.UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI.K.N.PHANINDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS
VIDHANA SOUDHA, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FORESTS, "ARANYA BHAVAN"
77
18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE-560 003 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THE
KARNATAKA FOREST [AMENDMENT] ACT, 2016 ENACTED
UNDER KARNATAKA ACT NO.23 OF 2016 AND PUBLISHED IN
THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.7.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS
DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND
THEREBY STRIKE DOWN THE SAME.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON SEPTEMBER 18, 2017, COMING
ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, P.S. DINESH
KUMAR, J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
78
ORDER
In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are challenging, inter alia, the Constitutional validity of Act 23 of 2016, amending Chapter XI-A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 ('Forest Act' for short).
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, the Forest Act was amended during 1976 inserting Chapter XI-A with effect from December 24, 1975, which provided for levy of forest development tax on disposal of forest produce by the State Government under Sections 98-A and 98-B of the Forest Act.
3. Further, in the year 1989, by Act 10 of 1989, the provision of Section 98-A was made applicable, with effect from February 14, 1978, to the Corporations owned or controlled by the State Government.
79
4. The validity of levy under Section 98-A of the Forest Act was challenged in this Court, contending inter alia that the said levy was in fact a fee, and such a fee could not have been levied as there was no quid pro quo with reference to the quantum of levy. This Court, in the case of Gurusiddappa Nurandappa Uppin and etc. etc. v. State of Karnataka and another etc. (AIR 1981 KAR 216), rejecting the contention of the petitioners therein, held that the levy under Section 98-A was not a 'fee', but answers the description of 'tax'.
5. Thereafter, the State Government were collecting forest development tax under Section 98-A of the Forest Act at the rate of 8 % p.a. on the royalty amount paid by the lease holders by treating the same as a 'disposal' within the meaning of Section 98-A. Such collection of forest development tax was challenged by several mining lease holders. This Court, in a decision rendered on July 2, 1996 80 in Writ Petition No.35525 of 1993 and connected writ petitions (R.Rampapathi v. State of Karnataka and others) held that the forest development tax was not leviable on the royalty. The writ appeals filed thereon, as also the Special Leave Petitions filed by the State Government before the Supreme Court of India in S.L.P.No.3742 - 46 of 1999 (State of Karnataka v. R.Rampapathi) stood dismissed.
6. By a notification dated August 16, 2008, the State Government brought the 'holders of mines and quarries situated in forest area' as 'body' under the ambit of Section 98-A(1) of the Act, requiring them to pay forest development tax. In furtherance thereof, instructions were issued to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests in Karnataka to recover forest development tax based on the value of minerals shown in bills and invoices. Official Memoranda were issued to the lease holders to pay tax at the rate of 8% p.a. on the invoice value or the price fixed by the National Mineral Development 81 Corporation or Mysore Minerals Limited, whichever was higher. So far as the mines situated in the Ballari circle are concerned, by a communication dated October 13, 2008, the forest development tax was sought to be recovered at 12% p.a.
7. The aforesaid notification dated August 16, 2008, and consequential communications were challenged in writ petitions before this Court. In a decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court, on December 3, 2015, of which one of us (the Chief Justice), is a party, in the case of National Mineral Development Corporation Limited, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka and another reported in 2016(1) AKR 642, held, inter alia, that forest development tax is a 'Tax' leviable under Entry 54 List II and it is not 'fee' within the scope of Entry 47 List III of the Constitution.
8. The aforesaid decision in NMDC Case, is pending adjudication in Special Leave Petitions No.6219 - 6313 of 82 2016 and other connected cases before the Supreme Court of India.
9. Now, by Act 23 of 2016, notified in the gazette on July 27, 2016, the State Government has again amended Chapter IX-A of the Forest Act, which is under challenge in these proceedings.
10. We have heard Mr.S.Ganesh, Mr.D.L.N.Rao and Mr.Uday Holla, learned senior advocates for the petitioners and Mr.S.K.Bagaria, learned senior advocate for the State Government and Mr.Aditya Sondhi, learned additional Advocate General for the Monitoring Committee.
11. The principal contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners are:
(i) The State lacks legislative competence to enact the impugned legislation;
(ii) The impugned act is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of Gurusiddappa supra, 83 and other judicial pronouncements. Therefore, without altering the basis of the judicial pronouncements, the State could not have brought in the amendment only by adding explanations;
(iii) No fee is leviable unless there is a quid pro quo in the form of a service or benefit;
12. The petitions are opposed by the State by filing the Statement of Objections contending inter alia:
(i) that the findings recorded in Gurusiddappa's case are of no avail, as this Court in the said case, did not dwell on the question of validity of Section 98-A;
(ii) the concept of quid pro quo has undergone a total transformation. Further, environmental jurisprudence has also undergone a sea change. The levy under Section 98-A goes into a specific fund called 'Karnataka Forest Development Fund' as stipulated under Section 98-B and therefore, there is a direct nexus between the purpose and the object to be achieved. It has been held by the Apex Court that 84 it is not necessary to establish that those who pay the tax must receive direct or special benefit;
(iii) the Net Present Value (NPV), which the assessee pays under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, in proportion to the forest land diverted, is utilised for eco restoration activities, the benefits of which are enjoyed by the Society as a whole. The forest development fee fulfils the criteria of quid pro quo as the said fee shall be used for raising plantation for Protection, Conservation and Management of Forest and Wild Life; and other ancillary purposes;
(iv) this Court in the case of NMDC supra, ought not to have relied upon the findings of a Co-ordinate Bench to declare that the levy is in the form of a 'tax' and not 'fee'. But, ought to have re-examined the entire issue keeping in view, the environmental jurisprudence especially with regard to the concept of quid pro quo.85
13. Mr. S.K.Bagaria, learned Senior advocate for the State, arguing in support of the impugned amendment (Act 23 of 2016), made following submissions:
(i) the judgment of the Gurusiddappa does not come in the way, inasmuch as, by the impugned amendment (Act 23 of 2016), what is sought to be charged is 'fee' and not 'tax';
(ii) this Court, while allowing NMDC supra, has held;
• firstly, that having regard to the context in the expression, 'a body' would mean an artificial person created by a legal authority. Therefore, the expression 'a body' cannot have a reference to an individual or a natural person;
• secondly, placing reliance on Gurusiddappa supra, repelled the contention advanced on behalf of the State, that the forest development tax is in the nature of a fee, which could be imposed having regard to Entry 47 List III of the Constitution;
(iii) the impugned amendment (Act 23 of 2016) has been brought in after curing the aforementioned aspects. The purpose of the amendment is to:
86
(a) declare the meaning and purpose of the word 'a body notified by the State Government' occurring in Section 98-A;
(b) restate the nature of levy and declare that it is in the nature of fee; and
(c) validate collection of forest development tax or forest development fee from 2008 onwards.
(iv) the levy under Section 98-A of the Forest Act, though earlier called as tax was always in the nature of fee, having all the ingredients of fee and the legislature has only re-stated the same;
(v) the forest development fee is intended to augment the resources required for the State Government to carry out it's duties as the custodian of natural resources in accordance with the doctrine of public trust. The funds required to achieve the objective of National Forest Policy are enormous, and a beginning in this direction has been made, out of the resources augmented by the collection of levy;87
(vi) after expansion of scope of Section 98-B(4) by the amendment Act, 2016, the levy collected under Section 98-A can be spent for raising of plantation, afforestation and management of wild life;
(vii) that an examination of the Chapter I to XII of the Forest Act shows that the said Act is regulatory in nature. To impose a regulatory fee, there is no requirement of quid pro quo;
(viii) that the entire field is not occupied by the MMDR Act.
This Court has elaborately considered this aspect in the NMDC case, supra and held that tax and fee is not a subject matter dealt by the MMDR Act. Thus, the State legislature is not denuded of it's power to impose levy either in the form of forest development tax or forest development fee having regard to Entry 54 List I of the Constitution and the MMDR Act;
(ix) that the levy under the NPV and the compensatory afforestation charges and the forest development fee are mutually exclusive and there is no duplication; 88
(x) the levy now sought to be imposed in the form of fee is not in the form of additional royalty, as the instant levy is on the disposal of forest produce (minerals);
(xi) that the levy being a fee is not violative of article 286(1) of the Constitution; and
(xii) that, irrespective of the amendment, the levy collected from August 16, 2008, is not admittedly paid by the lessees, but by the purchasers of the forest produce, who inturn would have passed on the burden to other processors and eventually to the consumers. Therefore, any refund of the same amounts to unjust enrichment, inasmuch as the burden of tax has been passed on to the purchaser.
14. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned senior advocates on behalf of the petitioners and Mr.S.K.Bagaria, learned senior advocate on behalf of the State.
89
15. This Court in the case of NMDC supra, has held that 'Forest development Tax' is a 'tax' leviable under Entry 54 List II and it is not a fee within the scope of Entry 47 of List III. FDT being in the nature of a sales tax, following the dictum of the Division Bench in Gurusiddappa (supra), it is held that it is neither compensatory nor regulatory in nature. It is compulsory exaction and not a fee.
16. In the light of rival contentions, the point that falls for consideration is whether this is a case of an attempt by the State Government to annul the judgment of this Court in NMDC case.
17. It is settled that an earlier judicial decision can be rendered ineffective only by removing the legal basis in the un-amended act, on which such decision was founded.
18. In the statement of objects and reasons, in the instant case, it is stated as follows:-
90
"7. In Guru Siddappa v State of Karnataka AIR 1981 Kar 216, the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court had held that the Forest Development Tax (FDT) levied on the purchase price of forest produce was within the legislative competence of the State under Entry 54 of List-II and constitutionally valid. Although the unamended section 98A(1) refers to the levy of a tax, the impost is more in the nature of a fee. The amount collected by way of forest development tax is earmarked for development and regeneration of forest and does not go to the general revenue of the State to be spent for general public purpose. This is also made clear by section 98B of the Act which specifies that the Forest Development tax (FDT) and interest that is levied and collection under section 98A will form part of the Karnataka Forest Development Fund. The Forest Development Tax (FDT) and other amounts specified in section 98B(2), although credited to the Consolidated Fund of the State, is later appropriated and transferred to the aforesaid Karnataka Forest Development Fund.
8. In State of Maharashtra v Salvartion Army AIR 1975 SC 846, the Supreme Court held that an impost which initially was in the nature of a fee would subsequently assume the characteristics of a tax. The converse is equally true. The decision of the Karnataka High Court was rendered in 1981 and Forest Development Tax (FDT) was treated as a tax coming within Entry 54 of List-II.
9. Since, the Forest Development Tax (FDT), as a fee, will be levied at the time of disposing by way of sale or otherwise of forest produce, the fee is being levied in exercise of powers of the State Legislature under Entry 66 of List-II of schedule VII of the constitutions. In Corporation of Calcutta v. Liberty Cinemas AIR 1965 SC 1107, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the fee can also be under an enactment relatable to the imposition of a tax. In any event, the State Government has the authority to levy such fee under Entry 47, List III.
Validation:
10.1 The State Government has levied and collected more than Rupees 3500 crores as Forest Development Tax (FDT) after 91 the impugned notification was issued in 2008. All the petitioners in the above judgment conceded that they were disputing the levy only upto 2011. However, it is proposed to validate such collections both by the lease holders of mines and quarries situated in forest area and by the Monitoring Committee, from the purchasers of minerals till date. The Present Bill seeks to achieve the objects as mentioned above and also to provide for the validation of the levy and collection of Forest Development Tax (FDT). Clause 6 of the Bill, inter alia, provides that any demand and/or any action taken under the provisions of the Act as in existence prior to this amendment Bill shall be deemed to have taken or levied under the new law after the amendment. This will validate the demand made by deeming it to have been made under the amended law and thus protect the revenue of the State. This Bill thus cures the infirmity and removes the defect found in the existing provisions and makes adequate provisions in the validation clause for a valid imposition of the Forest Development Tax and Forest Development Fee.
10.2 The State Government proposes to recomputed the Forest Development Fee as per prescribed rules or guidelines. If the demand as computed as per new rules or guidelines is lesser than the amount of Forest Development Fee demanded under the erstwhile section 98A or any notification issued thereunder, the lesser amount will be payable as Forest Development Fee.
10.3 A provision is also proposed to exempt or reduce Forest Development Tax (FDT) or Forest Development Fee by Government by notification prospectively or retrospectively in public interest by any specific clause of person or in respect of any specified forest produce."
(Emphasis supplied)
19. The specific case of the State Government, as discernable from the written submissions is, though, the levy under Section 98-A of the Forest Act was earlier called as 'tax' 92 it has always been in the nature of 'fee'. It is also the specific case of the State that this contention was urged in the NMDC case, and the same was rejected.
20. It is relevant to note that Chapter XI-A was inserted by Act 15 of 1976 and it was deemed to have come into effect with effect from December 24, 1975.
21. Admittedly, Gurusiddappa (supra), was decided in the year, 1981 holding that, the levy imposed under Section 98-A of the Forest Act was a 'tax'. Accepting this position, the State Government issued a Notification published in the official gazette on August 16, 2008, bringing the holders of mines and quarries situated in forest area under the ambit of Section 98-A of the Forest Act and requiring them to pay forest development tax. However, it is now sought to be contended on behalf of the State that, the State had always construed the levy as 'fee', but not 'tax'. The gazette notification dated August 16, 2008, reads as follows:- 93
"KA-BG-GPO/2515/WPP-47/2006-08 KARNATAKA STATE GAZETTTE OFFCIALLY PUBLISHED SPECIAL EDITION Part- Bangalore, Wednesday, August 27, No.937 IV-A 2008 (Bhadrapada 5, Shaka Varsha, 1930) FOREST, ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT SECRETARIAT NOTIFICATION No.FEE 248 FDP 2006, Bangalore, Dated:16th August, 2008 In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 98-A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (Karnataka Act No.5 of 1964), the Government of Karnataka hereby notifies the lease holder of mines and quarries situated in forest area for the purpose of the said sub-section.
This will come into effect from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.
By order and in the name of Government of Karnataka, VADAGAVE BAAVARAJ Under Secretary to Government, Forest, Ecology & Environment Department"
22. A careful perusal of the above notification makes it clear, that the intention of the State was to bring the leaseholder of mines and quarries within the ambit of Section 98-A of the Forest Act. The Section 98-A, prior to amendment 94 contemplated levy of forest development 'tax'. This Court having quashed the Notification dated August 16, 2008 and consequential communications in the NMDC Case, the argument advanced on behalf of the State that their assumption of levy was always a fee, must fail.
23. This leads us to now examine the impugned amendment (Act 23 of 2016). The amended Section 98-A reads as follows:-
"1[CHAPTER XI-A FOREST DEVELOPMENT 2[FEE] 98-A. Levy of Forest Development 3[fee].--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in respect of forest produce disposed of by the State Government 4[or by a corporation, owned 5[or controlled by the State Government] or a body notified by the State Government] by sale or otherwise, there shall be levied and paid to the State Government a 6[fee] at the rate of 7[twelve per cent] on the amount of consideration paid therefor:8
[*****]:1
[*****]:2
[provided also that , in respect of minerals which is a forest produce the rate of Forest Development fee shall be twelve percent.] 3 [Explanation: (1) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purposes of this sub-section, the words "a 95 body notified by the State Government" shall mean and include all entities directly or indirectly engaged in disposing of forest produce found in, or brought from, a forest, as individuals or other entities including Hindu Undivided Family, Company or foreign Company, partnership firms, societies, cooperative societies, other bodies corporate, trusts, lease holders of mines and quarries situated in forest area or any other association or committee or person, whether or not such individuals or entities constituted TABLE Sl Forest produce When disposed of to No (1) (2) (3)
1. Timber, Firewood, grass, Industries Charcoal and Eucalyptus
2. Bamboo, reds and canes Pulp and Paper Industries except Cottage Industries;
3. Sandalwood (a) Sandalwood Oil, Factories; and
(b) Others, except;
(i )Artisans
(ii)Religious Institution; and
(iii) Cottage Industries
4. Minor Forest produce as Industries except Large defined in the rule but not scale Multipurpose Co-
falling under Serial numbers 1 operative Societies
and 2 (LAMPS)]".
themselves into a juristic entity and whether or not such individuals or entities collectively come together and act as a group or body.
Explanation: (2) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purpose of this sub-section, the words, "or otherwise" includes disposal through captive consumption.
Explanation: (3) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that Forest Development Fee shall be levied on the disposal of the forest produce irrespective of whether such forest produce is intended for sale inside or outside the State of Karnataka or for the purpose of export or for captive consumption.] 1 [(1-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no 2[fee] shall be payable to the State Government by a 96 corporation, owned or controlled by the State Government to the extent of 3[fee] not levied and collected by it during the period from fourteenth day of February, 1978, till the commencement of the Karnataka Forest (Amendment) Act, 1988.] 4 [(1-B) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection(1), no fee shall be levied on the forest produce which is not found in or not brought from the forest except when it is disposed of by the State Government.
(1-C) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection(1), no Forest Development Fee on forest produce shall be payable to the State Government, for which no demand was raised during the period from 16th August of 2008 till the commencement of the Karnataka Forest (Amendment) Act, 2015 (Karnataka Act 41 0f 2015); and (1-D) The State Government may make rules regarding manner of Levy, computation and collection of Forest Development fee from a retrospective date.] (2) The said 5[fee] shall be collected along with such consideration.
(3) It is hereby declared that the said 1[fee] shall be in addition to and not in lieu of any 2[fee] payable in respect of such produce under any other law in force.
3
[(4) There shall be levied and collected interest at the rate of eighteen percent per annum till the date of payment or recovery of all 4[fee] dues.] 98-B. Forest Development Fund.--(1) There shall be constituted for the State of Karnataka a Fund called the Karnataka Forest Development Fund.
5
[(2) The following shall form part of the Karnataka Forest Development Fund, namely:--
(a) the 6[fee] 7[and interest] levied and collected under section 98-A;97
(b) the money recovered for raising compensatory plantation in lieu of the forest area made over for non-forestry purposes;
(c) sandal surcharges collected for the development of sandalwood resources;
(2-A) The amounts referred to in sub-section (2) shall first be credited to the Consolidated Fund of the State and under appropriation duly made by law in this behalf, be entered in and transferred to the Karnataka Forest Development Fund.] (3) Any amount transferred to the said fund under sub- section (2), shall be charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the State.
8
[(4). The amount at credit of the said fund shall be expended only for one or more of the following purposes, namely:-
(a) raising of plantations in notified forest areas and such other purposes as are ancillary thereto namely soil and moisture conservation works in notified forest areas;
(b) consolidation of the boundaries of notified forest areas;
(c) acquisition of private areas for the consolidation of forests;
(d) construction and maintenance of forest housing in rural areas for frontline staff;
(e) training, capacity building, research and technology;
(f) sustaining Joint Forest Planning and Management activities and the Village Forest Committees/eco development committees;
(g) rehabilitation and resettlement of people from interior forest areas;
(h) such other activities relating to Forest development or management or wild life protection and management as may be notified by the State Government from time to time.]"98
24. If the amended provision is read in juxtaposition with the un-amended provision, it is noticed that the word 'tax' is substituted by the word 'fee'.
25. By explanation (1), all entities from individual to corporate companies have been included within the definition of 'a body notified by the State Government'.
By explanation (2), captive consumption has been brought within the definition 'otherwise'.
By explanation (3), any sale inside or outside the State of Karnataka or for the purpose of export or for captive consumption have also been brought within the ambit of this Section.
26. In Gurusiddappa (supra), this Court has recorded as follows:-
"34......... Applying those tests, it is not possible to accede to the contention urged for the petitioners that the levy under Section 98A of the Act is in the nature of fee. The levy under that section is not intended to cover the expenses for rendering service to any person or class of persons from whom the amount is collected. Similarly, the 99 levy is not in the nature of compensatory tax as found in the Automobile Transport's case. In the said case the tax levied by the Rajasthan State on motor vehicles carrying goods and passengers was challenged by the petitioners therein on the ground that it was violative of Article 301 of the Constitution which provides that trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the country shall be free from all restrictions. The contention was negatived by the Supreme Court holding that the tax was compensatory in nature in that it was meant to compensate the State in respect of the money required to be expended for construction and maintenance of roads and bridges which were being used by the petitioners and others for the purpose of trade, commerce and inter course. The levy under Section 98A of the Act in a compulsory exaction of money for public purpose and answers the description of tax. It is neither compensatory nor regulatory in nature. In any event, it is not shown how existence of quid pro quo is necessary to impart validity to the levy even if it is compensatory and/or regulatory in nature when the levy is a tax and not a fee. Hence, the third contention is devoid of any substances."
(Emphasis supplied)
27. It is not the case of the State that Gurusiddappa (supra), has not declared a correct position of law. Surprisingly, the State have taken a peculiar stand and sought to assail the judgment of this Court in NMDC (supra), in these proceedings by contending thus in the Statement of objections:-
"17. The contention of the petitioners that in the light of the judgments in Gurusiddappa and NMDC case, the character of levy pursuant to the impugned amendment cannot be held to be of a fee, that too with retrospective effect, is not sustainable as this 100 Honourable High Court, in the NMDC case ought not to have relied on the findings of its coordinate bench to declare that the levy is in the nature of a tax and not a fee and should have re- examined the entire issue in light of the facts mentioned in the above paras and should have taken into consideration inter alia the fact that Tax and Environmental jurisprudence, especially with regard to concept of quid pro quo, have undergone a total transformation in light of the recent decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is further submitted that the said levy, even before the impugned amendment, was in the nature of fee as it fulfilled all the criteria of a fee as enunciated by the Honourable Supreme Court, as explained in the above paras. The impugned amendment has only has restated the same. The same is evident from the Statement of Objects and reasons appended to the Bill which is appended herewith as ANNEXURE R1.".
(Emphasis supplied)
28. Thus, even according to the State, the findings recorded and the decision rendered in Gurusiddappa (supra), holds the field as on date. Therefore, it is reasonable to construe that, not withstanding State's assumption, the levy imposed by the State, prior to amendment, cannot be anything but 'tax'.
29. No doubt, 'fee' can be imposed by the State in appropriate cases. But, we hasten to add that in the instant case, the forest produce involved is a mineral and the same is 101 governed by the provisions of the MMDR Act. Declaration contained in Section 2 of the MMDR Act, is unequivocal and reads as follows:-
"2. Declaration as to the expediency of Union control.- It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that the Union should take under its control the regulation of mines and the development of minerals to the extent hereinafter provided."
30. It is also the specific case of the State that the levies under the NPV, compensatory afforestation fee, recovered under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980; and the fee now sought to be levied are exclusive and do not overlap each other. The written submission by the State and a comparative statement appended to it, reads as follows:-
4. Levies (NPV, CA charges & FDF) mutually exclusive and no duplication The contention of the petitioners that the mining lease holder is required to pay royalty under provisions of MMDR Act, NPV & CA charges towards CAMPA and Forest Development Fee (FDF) under KFA, 1963 which is nothing but duplication of levies, on the very same assesse in respect of the very same transaction, and meant to be utilised for the very same purpose, one by the Union and one by the State Government is a complete and patent anathema to our Constitution, is totally erroneous. Each of the levy is in principle and concept varied from one another. Under 102 no stretch of imagination can the differential levies be placed in the same bracket.
In this regard, the following chart of objective comparison of the above mentioned levies makes it amply clear that these levies are in no way duplication, as they are neither levied on the same assesse, nor on the same transaction or are meant to be utilised for the same purpose.
A. Following is the comparison of the levies of NPV/CA with Forest Development Fee (FDF):
LEVY Compensatory Net Present Forest Remarks Afforestation Value (NPV) Development Charge (CA) Fee (FDF) Legal Entry No. 47 read Entry No. 47 Entry 17 A of Competence with Entry 20 of read with Entry List III read List III of 20 of List III of with Entry 47 Schedule VII of the Schedule VII of of List III of Constitution the Constitution Schedule VII and or Entry 54 of List-II read with Entry 66 of List-II of Schedule VII of the Constitution.
Statute under FC Act & EP Act FC Act & EP Karnataka which it is Act Forest Act, levied 1963 Specific Compensate the Compensate for For Objective is objective of loss of forest cover the ecological managing, distinctly different levy due to diversion of service lost due improving, for all the three forest land. to diversion of protecting levies.
forest land i.e. and
to get back, in enhancing the
the long run, forests and
benefits which wildlife of the
are lost by entire State of
diversion of Karnataka as
forest land for detailed in the
non-forestry Karnataka
103
purposes. Forest
(Amendment)
Act 2015,
wherein the
existing
Forest cover
is enhanced
through
afforestation
of degraded
forest lands of
Karnataka by
raising forest
plantations.
When is the Levy is charged Levy is charged Levy is
Levy charged when there is when there is charged when
diversion of forest diversion of there is
land under FC Act forest land disposal of
under FC Act forest
produce.
Levy used for For afforestation For activities to For The fee or charge
what purpose of proportionate compensate the managing, so levied in the
forest/non forest ecological improving, three instances are
land as stipulated services lost due protecting used for different
by MOEF, GOI in to diversion of and purposes and are
lieu of the forest forest area. This enhancing the mutually exclusive
land diverted i.e, is in proportion forests and
280 sq. kms. to area diverted wildlife of the
for non- forestry entire State of
purpose i.e, 280 Karnataka
sq. kms. including
afforestation
in all the
degraded
forest areas of
the State of
Karnataka
Levy is Compensatory Compensatory Karnataka Compensatory
credited to Afforestation Fund Afforestation Forest Afforestation Fund
which Fund and managed as Fund and Development receives funds
per CAF Act, managed as per Fund collected from user
2016. CAF Act, 2016. (KFDF), agencies/lessees
which came towards CA,
into existence ACA,PCA, NPV
from 1976. and all other
amounts recovered
from such agencies
under the Forest
(Conservation)
104
Act, 1980.
KFDF receives
funds collected
from the Forest
Development Fee
and sandal
surcharges
collected for
development of
Sandalwood
resource
Rate at which Present rate is Present rate Present rate While the CA and
the levy is Rs.2.55 Lakh/ varies from Rs is 12% on the NPV charges are
collected hectare basis 4.38 Lakh amount of one time payments
/hectare to Rs consideration. to be done while
10.43 Lakh seeking approval
/hectare under FC Act
depending on while FDF is to be
the eco class. collected and
remitted every time
there is disposal of
forest produce.
Levy Hectares of land Hectares of land Consideration
collection is diverted diverted collected for
directly each disposal
proportional of forest
to produce.
Responsibility State Government State The State
to collect the Government Government,
levy Corporation
owned or
controlled by
State Govt.
and the body
notified by
State
Government,
who is
disposing of
the forest
produce. The
State
Government
has notified
under 98A,
the mining
lease holders
for this
105
purpose.
Who pays the The User The User The entity to The User
levy agency/lessee to agency/lessee to which the agency/lessee has
which the forest which the forest forest only been given the
land has been land has been produce is responsibility of
leased for a leased for a disposed of collecting the levy
specific period specific period either through from the entity to
under FC Act. It is under FC Act. It sale or whom it is
a onetime is a onetime otherwise, disposed and remit
payment. payment. every time the same to the
disposal of Government.
forest
produce takes
place.
Status of MOEF, GOI has NPV is being Till now
implementati till date stipulated utilized for approximately
on in afforestation of carrying out 3,88,899
Karnataka approximately various forestry Hectares of
24,673 ha of land activities forest land in
as compensatory including forest Karnataka
afforestation in boundary has been
lieu of the forest consolidation, afforested
land diverted. Out survey and from 1977-78
of which demarcation of till date under
approximately forest area, the Karnataka
22,425 ha has infrastructure Forest
already been development, Development
planted. natural assisted Fund (KFDF)
regeneration, to which the
Protection and FDF is
Management of credited to.
forests and Wild
life etc in
proportion to
280 sq. kms.
31. A careful perusal of the above shows that, in substance, the State Government envisages to enhance the forest by using the fee collected under the amended provision. It is significant to note that NPV and compensatory 106 afforestation charges are collected by the leaseholders to compensate, for the ecological loss and diversion of forest. Therefore, though the object of the State Government is laudable, we are afraid, the contention that there is no duplication is unsustainable.
32. Thus, the most important aspect, which remains for consideration is, whether at all, the State could have sought to rename 'tax' as 'fee' in Section 98-A by mere substitution without removing the base upon which there existed earlier judicial pronouncements.
33. Though, in reiteration, we may record that this Court in Gurusiddappa (supra), has held that what was sought to be levied under the un-amended Section 98-A was a 'tax'.
34. Mr.S.K.Bagaria, heavily relied upon the statement of objects and reasons considered before enacting the 107 impugned amendment (Act 23 of 2016) and contended that this Court in NMDC case had quashed the Notification on the ground that the expression 'a body' would not include lease holders of mines. The basis of this finding has been removed by adding the explanation (1). But, the express finding recorded by this Court in paragraph 19(c) of NMDC case is as follows:
"(c) Re: Point No.(iii).- It is held that FDT is a tax leviable under Entry 54 List II and it is not a 'fee' within the scope of Entry 47 List III. FDT being in the nature of a Sales Tax, following the dictum of the Division Bench in Gurusiddappa, it is held, it is neither compensatory nor regulatory in nature. It is compulsory extraction and not a fee."
(Emphasis supplied)
35. In the case of D.Cawasji and Co., Mysore v. State of Mysore and another reported in 1984 (Supp) SCC 490, relied upon by Mr.Uday Holla, it is held as follows:-
"18. In the instant case, the State instead of remedying the defect or removing the lacuna has by the impugned amendment sought to raise the rate of tax from 6 ½ per cent to 45 per cent with retrospective effect from April 1, 1966 to avoid the liability of refunding the excess amount collected and has further purported to nullify the judgment and order passed by the High Court directing the refund of the excess amount illegally collected by providing that the levy at the higher rate of 45 per 108 cent will have retrospective effect from April 1, 1966. The judgment of the High Court declaring the levy of sales tax on excise duty, education cess and health cess to be bad become conclusive and is binding on the parties. It may or may not have been competent for the State Legislature to validly remove the lacuna and remedy the defect in the earlier levy by seeking to impose sales tax through any amendment on excise duty, education cess and health cess; but, in any event, the State Government has not purported to do so through the Amending Act. As a result of the judgment of the High Court declaring such levy illegal, the State became obliged to refund the excess amount wrongfully and illegally collected by virtue of the specific direction to that effect in the earlier judgment. It appears that the only object of enacting the amended provision is to nullify the effect of the judgment which became conclusive and binding on the parties to enable the State Government to retain the amount wrongfully and illegally collected as sales tax and this object has been sought to be achieved by the impugned amendment which does not even purport or seek to remedy or remove the defect and lacuna but merely raises the rate of duty from 6 ½ per cent to 45 per cent and further proceeds to nullify the judgment and order of the High Court. In our opinion, the enhancement of the rate of duty from 6 ½ per cent to 45 per cent with retrospective effect is in the facts and circumstances of the case clearly arbitrary and unreasonable. The defect or lacuna is not even sought to be remedied and the only justification for the steep rise in the rate of duty by the amended provision is to nullify the effect of the binding judgment. The vice of illegal collection in the absence of the removal of the illegality which led to the invalidation of the earlier assessments on the basis of illegal levy, continues to taint the earlier levy. In our opinion, this is not a proper ground for imposing the levy at the higher rate with retrospective effect.".........
(Emphasis supplied)
36. In the case on hand, though, it was strenuously contended on behalf of the State that the legal basis in the 109 un-amended Act, on which NMDC judgment was rendered, has been removed, a plain reading of the statement of objects and reasons extracted hereinabove, shows that State were conscious of the fact that, this Court in Gurusiddappa, held levy of tax, Constitutionally valid. However, as discernable from paragraph No.9 of the objects and reasons, the State proceeded to impose their assumption that 'tax' was in fact, 'fee' and imposed the levy all over again by re-christening it as 'fee'.
37. The view taken in the case of D.Cawasji (supra), has been quoted with the approval by the Supreme Court of India in the case of S.T.Sadiq v. State of Kerala and others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 400 relied upon by Mr. D.L.N. Rao.
38. Further, it is also settled, that an 'explanation' to a statutory provision is added to explain the meaning and intendment of the Act. In the case of M.P.Cement Manufacturers' Association v. State of M.P. and others, 110 reported in (2004) 2 SCC 249 relied upon by Mr.D.L.N.Rao, the State therein, attempted to impose cess on the production of energy by adding an explanation. It was noticed that the charging Section permitted impost of cess on sale of power. However, the State sought to impose the cess on production by adding an explanation. The Supreme Court of India, held that the explanation cannot be read as changing the incident of levy by stating thus:
"25. The expression used by the Explanation is "for the purpose of sub-section (2) of Section 3, the cess shall be levied on units of electrical energy sold or supplied". Since the purpose of sub-section (2) of Section 3 continues to be a levy on production, the word "levied" in the context would at the highest mean "assessment" and not "imposition". It is not the respondents' case that any new or additional or alternative cess was sought to be introduced by the Explanation. Thus despite the Explanation, the charge in Section 3(2) continues to be on the production of the electrical energy units and nothing else. The proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 3 continues to except electrical energy produced from the cess in certain cases. The Explanation, if it is read with the main provision, introduces certain contradictions and vagueness. A charging provision should be explicit, certain and clear in order to bind the subject. The outcome of the introduction of the Explanation to an otherwise unchanged Section 3(2) is a singularly ill-drawn provision. The 2003 amendment was obviously introduced for the purpose of rectifying the obvious error in Section 3(2), an object which cannot be achieved by introducing an Explanation since an Explanation cannot be read as changing or as interfering with the incidence of 111 the levy. It is not for us, particularly when legislative clarity is required since the statutory provision imposes a tax, to untangle the legislative confusion."
(Emphasis supplied)
39. If we apply the ratio of the above case, it is noticed that, in the case on hand, the incidence namely, the extraction of mineral, upon which, royalty is imposed under MMDR Act, remaining constant, imposition of levy by changing the name from 'tax' to 'fee' is impermissible. Thus, the mode in which the State has brought in the amendment is contrary to well established position of law.
40. So far as the argument with regard to validation is concerned, the same is, also, equally fallacious, in view of our finding, that the State has attempted imposition of levy, which has been held to be bad in law, by calling it with a different name.
41. The State having included Chapter XI-A in the year 1975 to impose 'tax' on forest produce, and the same 112 having remained on the statute book till July 27, 2016, nearly for a period of 35 years, after pronouncement of Gurusiddappa (supra), their argument that the State were always under the assumption that the levy was a 'fee' and not a 'tax', is noted, only to be rejected.
42. Though, several authorities were cited on both sides, we have felt it unnecessary to advert to them, in view of our findings recorded supra.
43. In the result, these petitions must succeed. Accordingly, they are allowed and the impugned amendment (Act 23 of 2016) is declared ultra-vires, Constitution of India.
44. Writ petitioners have also sought for refund of forest development fees, that they were compelled to pay during pendency of these writ petitions.
45. Mr.S.K.Bagaria, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, at the end of his 113 submissions, prayed that in the event the stand of the State be not accepted by this Court, the Forest Development Fees, already collected and utilised for the betterment of the ecology, might not be directed to be refunded to the petitioners.
46. We are unable to accept such prayer of Mr.Bagaria. In the background of the clear pronouncements of Gurusiddappa (supra) and NMDC (supra), the State ventured to introduce Forest Development Fees with retrospective effect without addressing the legal basis on which NMDC (supra) was rendered. Mostly, payments were made pursuant to interim orders passed by this Court or by the Supreme Court of India, from time to time. Consequently, all payments and acceptances were without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the writ petitioners in the pending writ petitions. We have held that the impugned amendment (Act 23 of 2016) is ultra vires Constitution of India. The levy was 114 collected by the State as 'tax' and the same has been declared illegal in NMDC (supra). Therefore, the State shall have no authority to retain the levy collected by seeking to appropriate the same by virtue of the impugned amendment (Act 23 of 2016). We, therefore, direct the refund of the forest development fees already collected by the State.
47. We make no order as to costs.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE cp*