Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 780 (JHR)

MADAN LAL GUPTA v. STATE OF BIHAR

2002-07-23

TAPEN SEN, VINOD KUMAR GUPTA

body2002
Judgment : ( 1 ) NO one appears for the respondents. The only ground on which the learned Single Judge refused to interfere was that the license for the saw mill could not be renewed in the absence of the prior approval of the Central Government. In coming to this conclusion, the learned single Judge was influenced by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of T. N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India, reported in (1997) 2 SCC 267 . ( 2 ) SINCE the period of the licence granted in favour of the appellant-writ petitioner for running a saw mill under the Bihar Saw Mill (Regulation) Act, 1990 had expired/was to expire on 17-1-95 and the petitioner-appellant had applied for the renewal of the licence, the respondents vide order dated 28-9-96 refused to grant such renewal, leaving the petitioner to file writ petition in this Court (being C. W. J. C. No. 297/97 (R)) which was dismissed by the learned single Judge vide judgment dated 29/04/1997; hence the present appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. ( 3 ) APPARENTLY, the refusal to renew the licence was based on the ground that the lease with respect to the land on which the saw mill was situated had not been renewed by the lessor in favour of the appellant-petitioner-lessee. This ground, however, was countenanced by the learned single Judge who, on this question held in favour of the appellant by declaring that the non refusal of the lease of the lessor could not be a ground for refusing to renew the licence for running the saw mill. ( 4 ) IT was on the second ground that the writ application was dismissed. By taking note of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of T. N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad (supra), learned single Judge found himself to be of the view that Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 imposed a ban on the renewal of the licence of any saw mill without prior approval of the Central Government. By taking note of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of T. N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad (supra), learned single Judge found himself to be of the view that Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 imposed a ban on the renewal of the licence of any saw mill without prior approval of the Central Government. ( 5 ) WE have very carefully gone through the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of T. N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad (supra) and find that whereas the better part of the judgment deals with some of the individual States, Part I being general in nature, deals with the entire country and in para 1 of Part I there is indeed a mention of Section 2 of 1980 Act but it is with respect to the "forest area" and the on going activities within any forest area. The running of a saw mill therefore, as has been mentioned in para 1 of Part I of the aforesaid judgment relates to a saw mill operating within a forest area. We are saying so because their Lordships were themselves referring to and relying upon Section 2 of the 1980 Act and while dwelling upon the scope and ambit of Section 2, their Lordships were issuing directions with respect to the running of a saw mill within a forest area. ( 6 ) THE aforesaid judgment in T. N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad (supra) came up for fresh consideration recently by the Supreme Court in the case of Jawahar Lal Sharma v. Divisional Forest Officer, U. P. , reported in (2002) 3 SCC 42 . In para 5 of this judgment, their Lordships by making observations that because of the Supreme Court being seized of the matter there has been reluctance on the part of the Government officials to deal with the grant of saw mill licences and their renewals, observed that no direction or order has been made by the Supreme Court to the effect that even existing licences should not be renewed. Actually in para 6 of the aforesaid judgment their Lordships very clearly made pertinent and specific observations to the effect that the holders of the existing licences could not be denied the right of their renewal. Actually in para 6 of the aforesaid judgment their Lordships very clearly made pertinent and specific observations to the effect that the holders of the existing licences could not be denied the right of their renewal. The two judgments, therefore, read together clearly point out that if a saw mill is situated in a non forest area and if the applicant is the holder of an existing licence, Section 2 of 1980 Act cannot be made applicable in such a case and therefore, there is not any requirement of any prior approval of the Central Government before grant of the renewal of such a licence. ( 7 ) AS has been noticed at the outset, the petitioner was holding the licence granted to him under the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Act, 1990. Section 5 of the aforesaid Act deals with the question of an applicant making an application for the grant of a licence and Section 7 deals with all matters relating to the grant and renewal of the licence. On going through the aforesaid 1990 Act, we find that this Act also nowhere lays down that the prior approval of the Central Government should be a requirement before grant or renewal of a licence under the Act. ( 8 ) WE have been told that the saw mill of the appellant is located in Dhanbad Town which, according to the appellant is not a forest area. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, therefore, this appeal is allowed, the order of learned single Judge is set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the application of the appellant-writ petitioner for renewal of the licence on the basis of the observations made hereinabove and if, indeed it is found that the saw mill is located in a place which is not a forest area (hence not covered by Section 2 of 1980 Act) to decide and dispose of the application accordingly. ( 10 ) THE needful shall be done within three months from the date of communication of this order. Appeal allowed. --- *** --- .