Orissa High Court
M/S. Jalaram Saw Mill vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opp. ... on 11 August, 2021
Author: K.R. Mohapatra
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.21439 OF 2021
M/s. Jalaram Saw Mill .... Petitioner
Mr. Subash Chandra Das, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opp. Parties
Mr. Dhananjaya Mund,
Additional Government Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 11.08.2021 02. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks for a direction to the Chief General Manager (MSME), IDCO, Bhubaneswar- Opposite Party No.3 for allotment of a land in favour of the Petitioner-Saw Mill for the purpose of rehabilitation in the Notified Industrial Estates within a stipulated period.
3. It is submitted by Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner that the license in respect of the Petitioner-Saw Mill was cancelled in view of the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Subsequently, as per the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Government of Odisha took up the cases for rehabilitation of such Saw Mills in the State of Odisha in different Industrial Estates. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted an application on 24th December, 2019 to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & & HoFF, Odisha, Bhubaneswar. Taking into consideration the application of the petitioner, his case was recommended for rehabilitation vide letter dated 10th February, Page 1 of 3 // 2 // 2020 (Annexure-1) issued by the Conservator of Forest (Forest Utilization)-cum-Member Convener, Bhubaneswar to the Chief General Manager (MSME), IDCO, Bhubaneswar. It is his submission that since then, no action has been taken by the Chief General Manager (MSME), IDCO, Bhubaneswar on such recommendation. Hence, he prays for the aforesaid relief.
4. Mr. Mund, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State submits that there is a definite procedure to be followed before taking any decision on the recommendation of the case of the petitioner and it will take some time. The authorities in response to the recommendation under Annexure-1 are taking necessary steps. Hence, this writ petition is premature and is not maintainable.
5. Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the Chief General Manager (MSME), IDCO, Bhubaneswar should take a decision on the recommendation made by the Conservator of Forests (Forest Utilization)-cum- Member Convener, Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.4.
6. Accordingly, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, disposes of the writ petition with a direction that the Chief General Manager (MSME), IDCO, Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party no.3 shall take steps to take a decision on the recommendation made by the Conservator of Forests (Forest Utilization)-cum-Member Convener, Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.4 as at Annexure-1 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four Page 2 of 3 // 3 // months from the date of production of certified copy of this order and proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
7. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge jm Page 3 of 3