Jharkhand High Court
Anand Timber vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors. on 11 July, 2002
Author: M.Y. Eqbal
Bench: M.Y. Eqbal
ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the letter dated 7.9,2001 and 12.12.2001 issued by respondent Nos. 3 and 4, namely, Conservator of Forest, Deoghar Circle, Deoghar and the Divisional Forest Officer, Deoghar, whereby the application for renewal of licence of Saw Mill has been rejected.
2. Petitioner's case is that in 1996, he had applied for grant of licence for Saw Mill and after due inquiry that the Saw Mill situated outside the forest area a licence was granted in 1997. The said licence being registration No. 1/97 was time to time renewed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Deoghar. All of a sudden in 2001 petitioner was directed by respondent No. 4 to produce all the documents in relation to his Saw Mill. Petitioner produced all the documents. However, suddenly respondent No. 4 refused to renew the licence and directed the petitioner to stop the Saw Mill.
3. Respondent No. 4 in his counter affidavit has stated that petitioner was granted licence for the Saw Mill in Deoghar township in 1997 after the ban imposed by the Supreme Court for grant of fresh Saw Mill licence. It is stated that Government of Bihar also took a policy decision not to grant licence for Saw Mills in the district Deoghar. It is further stated that on 14.2.2001, a meeting was held in which it was decided to reduce the number of Saw Mills in the district of Deoghar in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court. Respondents' further case is that on 21.6.2000, a raid was conducted in the Saw Mill of the petitioner on the basis of which a confiscation case being Case No. 17/2000 was started against the petitioner and a penalty of Rs. 10,000/-was imposed.
4. From perusal of the Impugned letter dated 7.9.2001, it appears that the Conservator of Forest ordered that renewal of licence shall not be issued till further order in view of the order passed by the High Court in a Public Interest Litigation. In another letter dated 12.12.2001, the Divisional Forest Officer informed the petitioner that all licences which were issued after 12.12.1996 shall not be renewed in view of the decision of the Supreme Court.
5. From perusal of the impugned letter issued by Divisional Forest Officer refusing to renew the licence of the petitioner, it appears that the only ground taken by the authority is that pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court no new licence can be granted after 12.12.1996. It is stated in the said letter that since petitioner was granted licence for Saw Mill in the year 1997 therefore, it cannot be renewed. It is not the case of the respondents that the Saw Mill of the petitioner is situated within the forest area.
6. In the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India and others, AIR 1997 SC 1228, the Supreme Court while considering the question about the object and purpose of the enactment of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 issued some guidelines. In the order dated 12.12.1996 the direction inter alia given by the Supreme Court reads as under :
"In view of the meaning of the word "forest" in the Act, it is obvious that prior approval of the Central Government is required for any non-forest activity within the area of any "forest". In accordance with Section 2 of the Act, all on-going activity within any forest in any State throughout the country, without the prior approval of the Central Government, must cease forthwith. It is, therefore, clear that the running of Saw Mills of any kind including veneer or ply-wood mills, and mining of any mineral are non-forest purposes and are, therefore, not permissible without prior approval of the Central Government. Accordingly, any such activity is prima facie violation of the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. Every State Government must promptly ensure total cessation of all such activities forthwith.
7. The Supreme Court again passed the order in the same ease on 4.3.1997 (AIR 1997 SC 1233) issuing further direction. Para 4 of the said order is worth to be quoted :
"All unlicensed Saw Mills, veneer and plywood industries in the State of Maharastra and the State of Uttar Pradesh are to be closed forthwith and the State Government would not remove or relax the condition for grant of permission/licence for the opening of any such Saw Mill, veneer and ply wood industry and it shall also not grant any fresh permission/licence for this purpose. The Chief Secretary of the State will ensure strict compliance of this direction and file a compliance report within two weeks."
8. From the orders of the Supreme Court quoted hereinabove it is clear that the Supreme Court has not issued direction to close down all Saw Mills and to stop grant or renewal of licence for such Saw Mills which are situated outside the forest area. The direction of the Supreme Court is to close down all unlicensed Saw Mill related to the State of Maharashtra and the State of Uttar Pradesh and there was no such direction so far State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) is concerned. As noticed above it is not the case of the respondents that since the Saw Mill of the petitioner is situated within the forest or forest area, therefore, licence could not be renewed. The authority refused to renew the licence only because of order dated 12.12.1996 passed by the Supreme Court.
9. Similar question arose before the Patna High Court in the case of Rajeeva Ranjan Sinha v. State of Bihar and others, 1999 (3) PLJR 955. In that case also application for establishing Saw Mill in the district of Aurangabad outside the forest area was rejected on the similar ground. The Bench considering the order passed by the Supreme Court observed :
"I am, therefore, clearly of the view that the direction of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest not to issue any fresh licence for Saw Mill in this State was quite unjustified and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. In so far as this State is concerned prior permission of the Central Government would be required for establishing a Saw Mill within a forest or within a forest area. But a Saw Mill outside a forest or a forest area will not attract this restriction and it would not be covered by the direction of the Supreme Court relied upon by the A.A.G.III."
10. Taking into consideration the entire facts of the case and the orders passed by the Supreme Court I am of the view that the impugned order issued by the authority refusing to renew the licence is not sustainable in law. The matter needs reconsideration by the respondent-authority.
11. For the reasons aforesaid this writ application is allowed and the im pugned order refusing to grant renewal of licence is set aside. Respondents are directed to reconsider the application of the peti tioner. If it is found that the Saw Mill of the petitioner situates outside the forest or forest area and there is no legal impediment, the respondents shall pass appropriate order in-accordance with law.