Gurunanak Saw Mill v. Union of India
Case brief
What is this about?
Batch of 19 writ petitions (lead W.P.(C) No. 466 of 2026; Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.; CAV order reserved 06.05.2026, delivered 06.07.2026) by licensed saw mill operators in Chhattisgarh challenging Notification dated 25.09.2025 issued under S.5(1) of the Chhattisgarh Kashtha Chiran (Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1984, declaring areas within 10 km aerial distance of the nearest notified forest/protected area as 'Prohibited Area' for three years, and consequential DFO closure orders (e.g., order dated 07.11.2025, Rajnandgaon). Held: SLC recommendations (4 km norm of 22.04.2019; pre-12.12.1996 mills recommendation of 22.06.2022) not binding over the statutory power; the 10 km norm a valid policy measure; no arbitrariness, mala fides or jurisdictional error; judicial review limited to decision-making process; all petitions dismissed, no costs.
What did the court decide?
SLC recommendations do not override statutory power: neither the language of the Guidelines nor the scheme of the Adhiniyam indicates that the recommendations of the State Level Committee are intended to override or supersede the statutory powers vested in the State Government under Section 5 of the Adhiniyam of 1984.