Remanded

Mr. Krushna Balasaheb Babar v. the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary (Forest), Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Aug 2014WP/80/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposes of multiple writ petitions challenging an order of the Appellate Authority (Chief Conservator of Forests) dismissing appeals regarding saw mill licensing notices. The Court quashed the impugned orders for failure to find whether the mills were established prior to July 16, 1981, and remanded them to the Appellate Authority for a fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. Appeals restored to the Appellate Authority to be reheard afresh within two months with specific direction to record a finding on whether the saw mills w

Mr. Krushna Balasaheb Babar Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2014)

wp80group

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.80 OF 2014

¶5

Krushna Balasahab Babar ...Petitioner
vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

¶6

ALONG WITH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.81 OF 2014

¶8

Yunus Munaroddin Kazi ...Petitioner
vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

¶9

ALONG WITH

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO.84 OF 2014

¶11

Mr.A.Sattar Haji Jainoddin
Hotgikar ...Petitioner
vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

¶12

ALONG WITH

¶13

WRIT PETITION NO.236 OF 2014

¶14

Faridsaab Abbasali Harkare Prop.of
Maharashtra Timber Merchant...Petitioner
vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

¶15

ALONG WITH

¶16

 WRIT PETITION NO.237 OF 2014

¶17

Solapur Lohar Bhata Audyogik
Utpadak Cooperative Society ...Petitioner
vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

wp80group

ALONG WITH

 WRIT PETITION NO.238 OF 2014

¶22

Mr.Ismail Gafoorsab Chamkora ...Petitioner
vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

¶23

ALONG WITH

¶24

WRIT PETITION NO.5889 OF 2014

¶25

Sanjay Vedprakash Gupta ...Petitioner
vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

¶26

Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni, Senior Advocate i/b
Mr.T.D.Deshmukh for the Petitioners in all petitions
Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 in
all petitions.

¶27

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 A.S.CHANDURKAR, JJ.

¶28

 DATE : AUGUST 6,2014

¶29

P.C.:

¶30

1Considering the narrow controversy involved,
the petitions are forthwith taken up for final
disposal. Rule. Learned AGP waives service for
respondents.

¶31

2The challenge in these petitions is to the
order of the Appellate Authority (Chief Conservator
of Forests), Maharashtra State, Nagpur.

¶32

3For the sake of convenience, we are making a
reference to the facts of the case in Writ Petition

¶33

3 wp80group

¶34

No.80 of 2014. The petitioner is the proprietor of
the saw mill by the name `Shri Swami Samarth Saw
Mills'. The case of the petitioner is that the said
saw mill was established prior to 16th July 1981.
The case made out in the petition is that the
licence issued to the petitioner for running the saw
mill was renewed from time to time till the year
2004. In the year 2005, notices were issued to the
petitioner calling upon him to shift the said saw
mill outside the limit of 10 kms from any registered
forest. It was stated in the notice that if the
said saw mill is not relocated outside the limit of
10 kms, the licence issued to the petitioner will
not be renewed.

¶35

4There is a reference to the suit filed by the
petitioner and others in which an order of
injunction was passed. It is claimed that the
petitioner was running the saw mill under the order
of injunction. It appears that based on the Judgment
and Order passed by the Division Bench of this Court
at Nagpur in Writ Petition Nos.4520 of 2005, 2884
and 2682 of 2002, the petitioner preferred an
appeal on 29th September 2011 against the notices
issued earlier. As the appeal was not heard, the
petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court in
which a direction was issued to decide the appeal.
It is stated that the petitioner withdrew the suit.
By the impugned order, the appeal preferred by the
petitioner has been dismissed.

¶36

5The contention of the petitioner before the

¶37

4 wp80group

¶38

Appellate Authority seems to be that the saw mill
was established prior to 16thJuly 1981 and
therefore, in terms of the directions issued by the
Division Bench of this Court at Nagpur, relief be
granted to the petitioner.

¶39

6The learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioners relied upon the aforesaid decision as
well as the decision of the Division Bench of this
Court dated 7th February 2002 in Writ Petition
No.3652 of 2001 (Nagpur Timber Merchants
Association, Nagpur and another vs. State of
Maharashtra and another). He submitted that before
the Appellate Authority, the Officers of the Forest
Department conceded that the saw mills of the
petitioners were established prior to 16th July 1981
and, therefore, the Appellate Authority ought to
have held that the notification dated 16th July 1981
cannot be applied to the said saw mills of the
petitioners. He submitted that the Appellate
Authority has completely ignored the decision of the
Bench of this Court at Nagpur in Writ Petition
No.4520 of 2005 and other connected petitions, only
on the ground that the petitioners were not parties
to the Writ Petitions and that the appeals were not
preferred by the petitioners within the time fixed
under the orders passed by this Court. He,
therefore, submitted that in view of position which
is virtually an admitted that the saw mills were
established prior to 16th July 1981, the appeals
ought to have been allowed.

¶40

5 wp80group

¶41

7The learned AGP on instructions stated that the
State Government has not challenged the decisions of
this Court which are relied upon by the learned
senior counsel for the petitioners. He, however,
submitted that the petitioners will have to
establish that their saw mills were established
prior to 16th July 1981.

¶42

8We have carefully considered the submissions.
It is true that in the Roznama recorded by the
Appellate Authority, there is a statement recorded
by the Appellate Authority of the Forest Officials
that the saw mills in question were in existence on
16th July 1981. However, in the reply filed to the
present petitions by Smt.Suvarna Ramdas Zol, the
Deputy Conservator of Forests, Solapur, the
respondents have disputed that the saw mills of the
petitioners were in existence on 16th July 1981.

¶43

9It is true that the Appellate Authority was
under an obligation to decide the appeal in terms of
the law laid down by this Court and in particular
the declaration granted by this Court in Writ
Petition No.3652 of 2001 that the notification
dated 16th July 1981 is prospective in operation and
the same cannot be applied to the saw mills
established prior to that date. There is no specific
finding recorded by the Appellate Authority on the
issue whether the saw mills of the petitioners were
established before 16th July 1981. The applicability
of the law laid down as above will depend upon the
petitioners establishing the fact that their saw

¶44

6 wp80group

¶45

mills were established prior to 16th July 1981.
Therefore, the impugned order will have to be set
aside and the Appellate Authority will have to be
directed to rehear the appeals.

¶46

10We must note here that in these petitions, ad
interim relief restraining the respondents from
sealing the saw mills has been granted. In the light
of the undertakings given by the petitioners to stop
operation of the saw mills till licences are
renewed, the adinterim relief granted by this Court
will have to be continued on the same terms and
conditions till the disposal of the appeals by the
Appellate Authority.

¶47

11Accordingly, we dispose of the petitions by
passing the following order:

¶48

(I)The impugned orders passed by the Appellate
Authority are quashed and set aside and the
Appeal Nos.165/2009, 9,/2011 8/2011, 17/2012,
6/2011, 334(0910)/880/1314 and 7/2011 are
restored to the file of the Appellate
Authority;

¶49

(II) We direct the petitioners to appear before the Appellate Authority on 25^th August 2014 at 11.00 a.m. The petitioners shall produce an authenticated copy of this order before the Appellate Authority;

¶50

(III) The Appellate Authority shall decide the appeals afresh in the light of what is observed in this Judgment and Order and in the light of

¶51

7 wp80group

¶52

the decisions of this Court in Writ Petition
No.4520 of 2005;

¶53

(IV)Needless to say that the Appellate
Authority shall decide the question whether the
saw mills were established before 16th July 1981
and shall record a finding on that aspect;

¶54

(V)The Appellate Authority shall allow the
petitioners to file additional documents in
connection with the said issue. The Appellate
Authority shall decide the appeals afresh as
expeditiously as possible and in any event
within a period of two months from 25th August
2014;

¶55

(VI)Adinterim reliefs which are operative in
these petitions will continue to operate
subject to terms and conditions incorporated
therein till the date of communication of the
orders in Appeal by the Appellate Authority. It
is made clear that the petitioners cannot run
the saw mills without obtaining renewal of
licence;

¶56

(VII)In the event the orders passed on the
Appeals are adverse to the petitioners, ad
interim relief will continue to operate for a
period of four weeks from the date of
communication of the said orders to the
petitioners;

¶57

(VIII)Rule is made absolute on above terms;

¶58

(IX)Parties to act upon an authenticated copy

¶59

of this order.

Mr. Krushna Balasaheb Babar v. the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary (Forest), Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Krushna Balasaheb Babar v. the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary (Forest), Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Parameshwar Ghodake Vs the Divisional Commissioner, Pune and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Rural Development Department and Ors. Vs Shri. Abhimanyu Davlat Kamble and Ors.

Shri. Atique Mohammed Khan Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Laxman Dhanaji Gunjal Vs the Sub Divisional Officer, Mhada Division and Ors.

The Collector, Satara and Ors. Vs Element Learning Center Private Limited and Ors.

Nazir Musa Darvesh and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.