Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 264 (PAT)

Rajeeva Ranjan Sinha v. State of Bihar

1999-04-07

AFTAB ALAM

body1999
ORDER 1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the orders rejecting his application for grant of licence for establishing a Saw Mill as provided under section 5 of the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Act, 1990. 2. The petitioner made an application for establishing a Saw Mill at Obra in the district of Aurangabad. It is undeniable that the village of Obra is not a forest or forest land within the meaning of the Forest (Conservation) Act. The petitioner's application was admittedly for the grant of a fresh licence and not for renewal of a subsisting licence. 3. According to the case of the respondents the petitioner was in fact running his Saw Mill from before without a licence and it was only after he was found running the mill without a proper licence that he made an application for grant of licence under the saw Mills (Regulation) Act. 4. Nothing much, however defends on this allegation as the petitioner was denied licence not because he was running a Saw Mill from before in violation of the provisions of the Saw Mills (Regulation) Act but because the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Ranchi has issued a direction prohibiting the issuance of any fresh licence for Saw Mills. The petitioner's application was, therefore, rejected by the Divisional Forest Officer, Gaya Forest Division by his order, dated 22.7.1987. His appeal against this order was also rejected by the Conservator of Forest by his order, dated 23.9.1997. The appellate order also gave the same reason for rejecting the appeal and stated that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest by his letter no. 1663, dated 11.4.1997 had plainly directed that no new licence for a Saw Mill was to be issued till further orders by him. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent authorities it is admitted that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest had issued such a direction in his circular letter, dated January 3/4, 1997 (Annexure-11) and the imposition of a complete prohibition against granting a fresh licence for saw Mill is sought to be justified on the basis of the directions given by the Supreme court in the orders passed by it on different dates in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 6. Mr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 6. Mr. A.A.G. III relied upon para 5.1.1 of the order dated 12.12.1996 passed in that case (reported in A.I.R.1997 S.C.1228). The directions given in that paragraph are as follows :- "5.1.1:1. General; 1. 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." (emphasis added) 7. According to Mr. A.A.G. III the direction of the Supreme Court was clear "that the running of saw mills of any kind including veneer or play-wood mills, and mining of any mineral are non-forest purposes and are, therefore, not permissible without prior approval of the Central Government." Mr. A.A.G.III reads this sentence in a completely unqualified manner and submits that the Supreme Court declared the running of saw mills anywhere (and regardless of whether or not it was situate within any forest area) impermissible without prior approval of the Central Government. But I am unable to accept the meaning put by the A.A.G.III on the direction given by the Supreme Court. The sentence relied upon by him has to be read in the light of the preceding sentences in the same paragraph. And I feel that the key words in the preceding sentences are "within the area of any forest" and "within any forest in any State". What I understand from the aforequoted passage is that the Supreme Court held that the running of Saw mills of any kind was non-forest activity and, therefore, the running of saw mills within a forest area was not permissible without prior approval of the Central Government as provided under section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act. What I understand from the aforequoted passage is that the Supreme Court held that the running of Saw mills of any kind was non-forest activity and, therefore, the running of saw mills within a forest area was not permissible without prior approval of the Central Government as provided under section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act. The direction does not relate to running of saw mills in a town or in an area which is admittedly a non-forest area. 8. The other direction concerning saw mills is to be found in the order, dated 4.3.1997 passed by the Supreme Court in the same case. In paragraph 4 of that order (reported in A.I.R. 1997 SC 1223:) it is stated as follows: "4. All unlicensed saw mills, veneer and ply-wood industries in the State of Maharashtra 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 plywood industry and it shall also not grant any fresh permission/licence for this purpose. The Chief Secretary of this State will ensure strict compliance of this direction and file a compliance report within two weeks." (emphasis added) 9. From the above it is evident that the direction to close down all un-licensed saw mills related to the State of Maharashtra and the State of U.P. and there was no such direction so far as this State is concerned. 10. No other direction of the Supreme Court was brought to my notice to justify the direction issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest in his aforementioned circular letter. 11. 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. 12. 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. 12. The impugned orders dated 22.7.1997 (Annexure-2) and 23.9.1997 (Annexure-1) are accordingly set aside and the competent authority is directed to consider the petitioner's application for grant of licence afresh in the light of this order. It is expected that a final order on the petitioner's application for licence will be passed within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 13. In the result, this writ petition is allowed, however, without any orders as to costs.