Disposed

Neelaksh Lakhanpal and Others v. State of Hp and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC9 Dec 2024CWP/1942/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP by Katha manufacturers seeking direction to expedite decision on their representation to convert traditional units into mechanized/semi-mechanized ones with IBR boilers. High Court directed authority to decide expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Direction to consider and decide pending representation of petitioners expeditiously within four weeks after affording opportunity of hearing.

Neelaksh Lakhanpal and Others Vs State of Hp… — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

2024:HHC:13828

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No.1942 of 2018 Date of Decision: 09.12.2024

¶4

Neelaksh Lakhanpal & Ors.

¶5

……...Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.

¶8

…....Respondents

¶9

Coram

¶10

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?

¶11

For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate.

¶12

For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent-State.

¶13

Mr. K.D.Sood, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Het Ram Thakur & Mr. Rajiv Sood, Advocates, for the applicant/intervener.

¶14

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶15

Precisely, the prayer of the petitioners, who are Katha manufacturers, is that necessary direction may be issued to respondents to permit them to convert their traditional units into mechanized/ semi-mechanized units. Previously, some of the similarly situate persons had approached this Court by way of Civil Writ Petition No. 5967 of 2024, which came to be decided vide order dated 24.06.2024 in following manner:

¶16

¶17

“Grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner intends to convert the traditional Katha Bahti into IBR boilers at par with similar permissions granted to certain Katha Bhatis; and that the petitioner has already submitted representations Annexures P-3 and P-4 to the respondents, which have not been disposed of till date.

¶18

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner will submit a detailed representation to the 5th respondent with regard to his grievance; and that the directions be given to the said respondent to decide the same in a time bound manner.

¶19

3. Learned counsel for the respondents have no objection to this course of action.

¶20

4. Accordingly, the Writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to make a detailed representation to the 5th respondent regarding his grievance and on receipt thereof, the 5th respondent is directed to decide the same within 2 weeks and to communicate the decision taken thereon to the petitioner.

¶21

Whereas, the petitioner submitted the representation on dated 03.07.2024 which was placed before the meeting of State Level Committee constituted for regulating the working of wood based industries in HP on 04.07.2024 for discussion.”

¶22

Pursuant to aforesaid directions issued by this Court in Civil Writ Petition, detailed hereinabove, some of Katha Bhatti operators submitted their representations to the department concerned, which came to be considered and decided by the competent authority i.e. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Himachal Pradesh, vide order dated 30.07.2024 (Annexure A-1) placed on record alongwith CMP No. 23716 of 2016.

¶23

¶24

Learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners, while

¶25

making this Court peruse aforesaid order, states that though on account of passing of aforesaid order, no separate request is required to be made by the petitioners for conversion of traditional units into mechanized/semi-mechanized units, but petitioners would be content and satisfied in case, representation having been filed by them for conversion in terms of order dated 30.07.2024 passed by Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Himachal Pradesh, is considered and decided in a time bound manner. At this stage, it would be apt to take note of order dated 30.07.2024 passed by Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, HP:

¶26

“ORDER

¶27

Whereas, the petitioner had filed CWP No. 5967/2024 with following prayers in the Hon'ble High Court as under:

¶28

It is, therefore being prayed that this representation may kindly be decided and;

¶29

(i) Offending part of the notification dated 29.04.2008 restricting trade and business of Katha Bhaties in the State of HP may kindly be modified in view of the subsequent events.

¶30

(ii) The representation may kindly be allowed to convert traditional Katha Bhaties into IBR Boiler at par with permissions as are granted to other 39 traditional Katha Bhaties to convert in IBR.

¶31

Whereas, the Hon'ble High Court of HP has decided the CWP No. 5967/2024 titled as Mast Mohammad V/s State of HP & others vide its order dated 28.06.2024 the operative part of which is as under-

3. Learned counsel for the respondents have no objection to this course of action.

¶36

¶37

¶38

Decisions of the State Level Consultative Committee (4th July, 2024)

¶39

The matters were deliberated in detail in SLC meeting. The minutes of the said meeting has been circulated vide letter No. Ft 35-24/2006-07 (Ind), CEC Vol-1 dated 29/07/2024 and have also attached as Annexure A. The relevant portion of the said minutes is reproduced as under:

¶40

After detailed discussion, SLC is of the considered view that the present mode of operation of traditional Kattha Bhattis is highly inefficient and poses a direct threat to the forests and wildlife through environmental

¶41

¶42

hazards. Such traditional units are energy inefficient with limited production efficiency. Moreover, they pose direct occupational hazards to the labor employed due to lack of safety provisions. In the context of (a) increased Khairwood availability in the state as per above, and to promote secure, safe and effecient Kattha extraction and processing in the state, SL.C decides the following in the case of Sh. Mast Mohammad:

¶43

a) To promote technical up gradation and to ensure environmentally safe and economically efficient Kattha extraction and processing, henceforth, all traditional Kattha Bhattis will have to be converted to Kattha Bhattis with IBR boilers. This will ensure uniformity as well as promote security of the unit through Inspector, Boiler to prevent any possible industrial damage or loss to the labor.

¶44

b) Each traditional Kattha Bhatti which will be converted to Kattha Bhattis with IBR boilers requires to register its unit afresh with the concerned DCF/DFO after paying a processing fee of Rs. I lac.

¶45

c) Each such newly registered Kattha Bhattis with IBR boilers will be allowed to process Khairwood with bark in the range between 5435 to 7500 quintals in entire year sourced from within the state of Himachal Pradesh.

¶46

SLC is also of the considered view that as other traditional Kattha Bhattis are similarly situated as in the case of Sh. Mast Mohammad, any owner of other traditional Kattha Bhattis can convert to Katta Bhatti with IBR boiler with the same conditions as listed above (a to c).”

¶47

Therefore, keeping in view of the facts narrated above, the case of the petitioner is considered and decided as mentioned above.”

¶48

¶49

Learned Additional Advocate General representing the aforesaid authority states that prayer, if any, made on behalf of the petitioners to consider their case in terms of order dated 30.07.2024 (Annexure A-4) , if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously.

¶50

Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned Additional Advocate General, present petition is disposed of with a direction to consider and decide the pending representation, if any, of the petitioners in terms of order dated 30.07.2024 expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and pass speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceeding in appropriate Court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶51

December 09, 2024 (Sunil)

¶52

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

Neelaksh Lakhanpal and Others v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelaksh Lakhanpal and Others v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Neeraj Singh and Co. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Chemists and Druggists Association Vs State of Hp and Others

State of Hp and Others Vs Gita Ram Tegta

Anoop Katoch Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Bholeshwar Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

Sandeep Thakur Vs State of Hp and Others