Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 780 (GAU)

Puspendra Tamuli Phukan v. State of Assam

2017-06-13

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2017
JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. PJ Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D Nath, learned State counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Ms. R Devi, learned counsel for respondent No.6. 2. The petitioner by proceeding through the District Industrial Centre Nagaon had set up a mechanized carpentry unit at the industrial estate Nagaon. The mechanized carpentry unit also comprises of an ancillary unit, which is commonly called band saw mill. The purpose of band saw mill is to use mechanized instruments for giving shapes and cutting pieces of woods for the purpose of furniture and other items. Earlier the respondent authorities had issued an order dated 04.06.2000 under the signature of the Range Officer Lanka Range, whereby the petitioner was asked to close the functioning of the band saw mill, which, in fact, is the ancillary unit of mechanized furniture manufacturing unit. The said order dated 04.06.2000 was assailed in a writ petition being WP(C)No.5973/2003. 3. In WP(C)No.5973/2003, the petitioner had raised an issue that as per the letter dated 30.09.2001 of the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Govt. of India, which was issued pursuant to a representation of the Nagaon District Small Wood Based Unit Owners Association, a clarification was given that the expression wood based units referred in the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order dated 15.01.1998 in WP(C)No.202/1995, is in respect to saw mills, veneer mills, plywood mills and various combinations of the above, but does not include units using timber for manufacturing furniture, electrical accessories, sports goods etc. 4. This Court by referring and interpreting the said letter dated 30.09.2001 of the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Govt. of India had arrived at a conclusion that the restriction imposed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order dated 15.01.1992 in WP(C)No.202/1995 is confined only to the saw mills, veneer mills plywood mills etc., and the same is not applicable to units using timber for manufacturing furniture, electrical accessories, sports goods etc. 5. Accordingly, by the order dated 20.12.2005 in the said WP(C)No.5973/2003, it was provided that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Assam would cause an enquiry as regards the contention of the petitioner in the background of the letter dated 13.09.2001 and also the Assam Wood based Industries (Establishment and Regulation) Rules, 2000 (for short the Rule 2000) and arrive at an appropriate decision thereon. Consequent to the said direction of this Court in its judgment and order dated 20.12.2005, the order dated 01.07.2011 had been passed, which is being assailed in this present writ petition. 6. In the order dated 01.07.2011, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Assam arrived at a conclusion that under the Rules, 2000, there is no such provision for granting license to band saw mill and the draft amendment of the said Rules of 2000, which had been forwarded to the Administrative Department was not yet been approved. Accordingly, by the said order, it was provided that the case of the petitioner would be considered as per Rules as and when the draft amendment of the Rules of 2000 is approved by the State government. 6. The said conclusion of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest in the order dated 01.07.2011 is being assailed in this writ petition. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that in the Rules of 2000, wood based industry is defined in Rule 2(e) which provides that wood based industries include saw mills, veneer mills, plywood mills, match/match splint/particle board/hard board/ katha manufacturing units and sandal-wood oil extracting units or any other industry using timber as raw material. Apparently the said definition of Wood Based Industries, which is an inclusive definition, does not include furniture manufacturing unit/mechanized carpentry unit. 7. In such view of the matter, the furniture manufacturing unit/mechanized carpentry units are not included in the definition of wood based industries. The conclusion of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest in his order dated 01.07.2011, that the petitioner is not entitled to a license for the purpose is, therefore, found to be an incorrect application of the Rules. If the un-amended Rules 2000 regulates the process of granting license in respect of wood based industry and a particular industry is not a wood based industry, in such event, it cannot be construed that as because the Rules does not cover other kind of industries, therefore, no license can be granted to such industry. 8. As stated by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest in his order dated 01.07.2011, the case of the petitioner for grant of license would be considered as and when the amendment is brought into Rules also in the view of this Court is unacceptable. 8. As stated by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest in his order dated 01.07.2011, the case of the petitioner for grant of license would be considered as and when the amendment is brought into Rules also in the view of this Court is unacceptable. But in any view of the matter, the draft amendment of the Rules, 2006, inter alia, provides for wood based industries as well as secondary wood based industries. 9. The wood based industries, as per the draft amendment is defined to be industries which include wood based industries include saw mills, veneer mills, plywood mills, match/match splint/particle board/hard board/ katha manufacturing units and sandal-wood oil extracting units or any other industry using timber as raw material. The said amended definition is in substance same as that of the earlier definition other than that sandal-wood oil extracting units has also been included in the said definition. But at the same time, secondary wood based industries is also included and defined in the draft amendment, which means to include agar-wood oil extraction units and furniture making units, electric accessories making units, sport goods manufacturing units, handicraft manufacturing units having vertical band saw up to 9” (inch) opening and/or circular saw up to 12” (inch) diameter for re-sawing of sawn timber for their own use but does not include wood based units having facilities for sawing of round timber or which are involved in sale or trade of sawn timber. 10. In such view of the matter, furniture manufacturing units has been included within the definition of secondary wood based industries as per the draft amendment of Rules 2006. 11. It is stated that the said amended Rules of 2006 is still in the draft stage and it is not known to the parties whether the same has been adopted, in the meantime, or not. 12. 11. It is stated that the said amended Rules of 2006 is still in the draft stage and it is not known to the parties whether the same has been adopted, in the meantime, or not. 12. Be that as it may, by the draft amendment seeks to provide that the secondary wood based industries, other than the agar-wood oil extraction units will be allowed to be operated even outside the industrial estates on the condition that they shall be registered with the concerned divisional forest officer on payment of certain registration fees and that vertical band saw mill shall not be used for log(round timber) or sawn timber and that the timber processed in such units shall be utilized by the same unit for the purpose of furniture manufacturing and shall not be utilized for the purpose of trade. 13. In such view of the matter, even, if the provision of the draft Rules is taken into consideration the existence of band saw mill involved in furniture manufacturing is contemplated and cannot be said to be illegal entity which is not recognized by law. 14. From both the aforesaid points of view as to whether the amendment to the Rules of 2000 had been incorporated or not incorporated as on today, the existence and operation of a band saw mill cannot be stated to be an activity which is not permissible by law. Even the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 15.01.1998 in WP(C)No.202/1995, which was originally relied upon by the respondent authorities to declare the activity of the petitioner to be illegal, does not state that such activities of band saw mill are prohibited by law. 15. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met, if the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest is directed to review his order dated 01.07.2011 and allow the petitioner to operate his band saw mill subject to such restrictions as may be imposed, the absence of which in the view of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest may lead to certain illegality or would be contrary to law. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest shall also ensure that the opportunity granted to the petitioner to operate his band saw mill would not be used for the purpose of dealing in any manner with illegal timbers and that the same shall be used only for the specified purpose of giving shape and cutting pieces of woods for the purpose of furniture manufacturing and other allied projects like electrical accessories, sports goods etc. 16. In doing the needful, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest shall follow the due procedure of law and also require the petitioner to do all the needful that is required to be done under the law. 17. In terms of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of. 18. The aforesaid exercise be carried out by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this orders.