Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1386 (PAT)

Narayan Prasad Sah v. State Of Bihar

2002-12-05

AFTAB ALAM

body2002
Judgment 1. In all these cases, the petitioners were operating Saw Mills under licences, subsisting or lapsed, issued under the provisions of the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Act. The petitioners in all these cases seek to challenge the Government Resolution issued by the Secretary, Environment & Forest Department, Government of Bihar under his memo no. 418E, dated 8.7.2002 (a copy of which is at Annexure 5 in C.W.J.C. No. 9701 of 2002). 2. The resolution coming under challenge contains certain decisions arrived at by the State Government after a long exercise following directions issued by the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 (T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad V/s. Union of India & Ors.). In compliance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court from time to time in the aforesaid case, the State Government constituted Expert Committee(s) and in the light of the reports of the Expert Committee(s), it has issued the impugned resolution. By the impugned resolution the Government fixed the total number of Saw Mills (1450) on the basis of the sustainable capacity of the forests in the State. It then fixed the norms of distribution of the 1450 Saw Mills mainly on the basis of population and demand for timber in the rural and urban areas. In the impugned resolution the Government also laid down norms for issuing new licences and/or for shutting down the saw mills being in excess of 1450, the total number of saw mills fixed for the State in the light of the Supreme Court directions. As a consequence of the State Government decisions, as contained in the impugned notification, a large number of saw mills are faced with the prospect of cancellation/ non-renewal of their licences for running saw mills and in those circumstances a number of writ applications have been filed challenging the Government Resolution, dated 8.7.2002. 3. The main submissions in this batch of cases were made by Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, who was followed by Mr. Mishra and others. In view of the order proposed to be passed in these cases, it is not needed to take notice of the petitioners contentions in any great detail but a bare outline of the submission is indicated for the sake of the record. 4. Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, who was followed by Mr. Mishra and others. In view of the order proposed to be passed in these cases, it is not needed to take notice of the petitioners contentions in any great detail but a bare outline of the submission is indicated for the sake of the record. 4. Mr. Mahto submitted that to carry on business in timber and to run saw mills was one of the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The right was subject only to reasonable regulatory measures which were contained in the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Act, 1990 and the Saw Mills (Regulation) Rules, 1993 and as long as the petitioners conformed to the regulatory measures laid down by the Act and the Rules, they could not be denied the right to carry on business of saw mills. 5. He next submitted that the State Government was acting completely unreasonably and arbitrarily in purported compliance of the directions of the Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad. Learned counsel submitted that the Supreme Court had given different directions for different States and so far as the State of Bihar was concerned, there was no direction by the Supreme Court to shut down the existing mills by denying them the renewal of licences. In support of the submission, Mr. Mahto relied upon a decision of this Court in Rajeeva Ranjan Sinha V/s. State of Bihar 2000 (1) B.B.C.J. Part-V, page 31 [; 1999 (3) PLJR 955]. He also relied upon a Bench decision of the Jharkhand High Court in L.P.A. No. 275 of 1997 (R) (unreported) and a Supreme Court decision in Jawahar Lal Sharma V/s. Divisional Forest Officer, U.P., A.l.R. 2002 S.C. 769 para 6). Apart from the aforesaid two main Points, Mr. Mahto assailed the impugned notification on some other grounds. 6. Mr. Mishra apart from adopting the submissions made by Mr. Mahto, advanced some other points for assailing the impugned Government Resolution, dated 8.7.2002. 7. Having thus briefly noted the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners against the impugned Government decision, this court refrains from making any pronouncement or observation in that regard. This is for the reason that this court is not inclined to entertain these writ applications at this stage. 8. 7. Having thus briefly noted the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners against the impugned Government decision, this court refrains from making any pronouncement or observation in that regard. This is for the reason that this court is not inclined to entertain these writ applications at this stage. 8. It may be noted here that at an early stage when the expert Committee(s) constituted by the State Government in pursuance of the directions given by the Supreme Court had submitted its report and the State Government was yet to take a decision on the basis of that report, a number of cases had come to this court assailing the report of the expert body. These cases were finally dismissed by a Bench of this court by decision, dated 10.1.2002 in L.P.A. No. 1458 of 2000 (Basudeo Yadav V/s. State of Bihar and others) and analogous cases reported in 2002 (1) P.L.J.R. 551 . In that decision, the Division Bench made the following observations : "The dispute being a fall-out of the directions of the Supreme Court and the matter being subjudice there, it would be difficult for this Court to make any interference. It is open to the appellants, if so advised, to intervene in the Supreme Court and seek necessary direction/ clarification." 9. Further, in course of hearing of these writ petitions, the Secretary, Environment & Forest Department, Government of Bihar brought to my notice an order passed by the Supreme Court on 9.5.2002 on l.A. No. 295 in W.P. (C) No. 202 of 1995 (T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad V/s. Union of India and others). By that order, the Supreme Court constituted a Central Empowered Committee for monitoring the implementation of its orders and vested the Empowered Committee with certain powers and functions. In para 4 of the Order, dated May 9, 2002 it was directed as follows : "(4) Any individual having any grievance against any steps taken by the Government or any other authority in purported compliance with the orders passed by this Hon ble Court will be at liberty to move the Committee for seeking suitable relief. The Committee may dispose of such application in conformity with the orders passed by Hon ble Court. Any application which cannot be appropriately disposed of by the Committee may be referred by it to this Hon ble Court." 10. The Committee may dispose of such application in conformity with the orders passed by Hon ble Court. Any application which cannot be appropriately disposed of by the Committee may be referred by it to this Hon ble Court." 10. Further, on 9.9.2002 a draft of the proposed notification under section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 constituting the General Empowered Committee was shown to the Court. On that day, the Supreme Court passed an order directing that whatever functions and responsibilities had been given to the Empowered Committee will now be exercised by this statutory committee formed under section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act. 11. The Secretary to the Government of Bihar also produced before me the notification, dated 17.9.2002 issued under section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act and published in the Gazette of India, dated September 18, 2002. He further informed the Court that since its formation the Committee had started functioning and had its office in Room No. 106 at Paryawaran Bhawan, New Delhi. 12. It is, thus evident that while giving directions in T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad the Apex Court was fully alive and conscious to the fact that the compliance with its directions will have wide ranging effects and may give rise to disputes and controversies. The Supreme Court was also alive to the fact that in some cases the actions of the State Government and the other agencies may not in fact amount to a true and faithful implementation of the Courts directions. Being conscious and alive to this fact, the Supreme Court took care to constitute a special forum and body of experts to examine any disputes arising from any action of the State Government in purported compliance with its directions. In these facts and circumstances, it will not be proper for this court to entertain these writ petitions and adjudicate on the petitioners challenge to the impugned resolution which is undeniably issued in compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court. 13. These writ applications are accordingly dismissed and the interim orders passed earlier are vacated. 14. It will be, however, open to the petitioners to approach and move the Committee referred to above as directed in the orders of the Supreme Court, dated 5.9.2002 and 9.9.2002 in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad.