Sahadev Patra v. Chief Conservator of Forests, Orissa
1995-03-16
R.K.DASH, V.A.MOHTA
body1995
DigiLaw.ai
Judgement V.A.MOHTA, C.J.:- As against the following factual backdrop the only point to be determined in this writ petition is : Whether the second appeal filed by the petitioner before Chief Conservator of Forest under proviso to Rule 10 of the Orissa Saw Mills and Saw Pits (Control) Rules, 1980 ( the Rules ) made in exercise of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 is maintainable or not? 2. The petitioner is a holder of a licence to run saw mill under the Rules. He received a notice under Rule 8 of the Rules for showing cause as to why his licence should not be cancelled. After hearing him, the licence was cancelled by the District Forest Officer by order dated 16-2-1990. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred a First Appeal in terms of Rule 10 of the Rules, before the Conservator of Forest in the year 1990. It was dismissed on 28-1-1995. The petitioner filed second appeal in terms of the proviso to Rule 10. On 10-2-1995 the Chief Conservator of Forest has referred to the State Government the question of maintainability of the Second appeal since he had doubt on the point in view of coming into force with effect from 23-3-1992 the Orissa Saw Mills and Saw Pits (Control) Act, 1991 which has repealed the Orissa Forest Act, 1972. The new Act provides for only one appeal against the order of Forest Officer under S. 12. 3. Thus the basic factual position foils down to this. There existed right of Second Appeal against the original order when it was passed and during pendency of First Appeal the old law was repealed.
The new Act provides for only one appeal against the order of Forest Officer under S. 12. 3. Thus the basic factual position foils down to this. There existed right of Second Appeal against the original order when it was passed and during pendency of First Appeal the old law was repealed. Repealing provision S. 24 of the new Act reads thus : ";Other Acts and laws not to apply to saw mill and saw pit : Nothing contained in any other Act, or Law, Rule, Order or any other thing having the force of law in any areas of the State, shall apply to the saw mill and saw pit, and sawing in respect of matters for which provisions are contained in this Act : Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed as to bar the application of any such Act, or Law, Rule, Order or any other thing having the force of Law for the purpose of institution, continuance or enforcement of any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any right, obligation or liability acquired, accrued, or incurred thereunder prior to the appointed date unless there is anything otherwise specifically provided in this Act."; 4. Now, it is trite to mention that right of appeal is essentially a substantive right and not a procedural right. When the first order was passed by the D. F.O., the petitioner had a vested right of filing two appeals which could not be taken away or impaired by the repealing Act unless the Act is made retrospective or it says so expressly or by necessary intentment. To toe the conventional line of citing a precedent in support of even the well established proposition, we refer to the case of M/s. Noosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1953 SC 221 . 5. Far from giving retrospective effect to the Act, the proviso to S.24 of the Act indicates the legislative intention of continuance or enforcement of any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any right, obligation or liability acquired, accrued, or incurred thereunder prior to the appointed date. 6. Under the circumstances, the second appeal filed by the petitioner is clearly maintainable. We direct the Chief Conservator of Forest (O. P. 1) to dispose of the said appeal on merits in accordance with law. 7.
6. Under the circumstances, the second appeal filed by the petitioner is clearly maintainable. We direct the Chief Conservator of Forest (O. P. 1) to dispose of the said appeal on merits in accordance with law. 7. The petition is allowed in the above terms, No order as to costs. R. K. DASH, J. :- 8. I agree. Petition allowed.