Challenging a notification constituting a State Level Committee for licensing saw mills, the petitioner argued that its rehabilitation hearing was pending. The court found no nexus between the petitioner's rehabilitation claim and the committee's formation, dismissing the petition as non-moot.
Writ petition dismissed; interim order stood vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(C) No. 19485 of 2018
02 18.11.2019 Heard Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J. Pattnaik, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. B. Mohanty, learned counsel for intervenor-opposite party no.8.
In compliance of order dated 08.11.2019, Mr. Pravakar Behera, Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Odisha appears in person and contended that in compliance of order passed by the apex Court dated 16.08.2010, steps for rehabilitation have been taken and accordingly amendment has also been made to the Odisha Saw Mills and Saw Pits (Control) Act, 1991. In view of that, the State Government was to identify industrial estates within an area not exceeding two in one district and subject to compliance of the guidelines issued, from time to time, was to allow the Saw Mills or Saw Pits for their establishment, relocation and functioning in such industrial estates. Consequentially, the saw mills owners have been rehabilitated under the provisions of the amendment made under the Act itself and in compliance of direction given by the apex Court. But fact remains, due to closure of the saw mills and saw pits, the forest growth in the State of Odisha has been improved, as has been mentioned, @ 4% in comparison to previous year, i.e., 2017-18. In the event, permission to open saw mills, in the name of rehabilitation, would be given to the closed saw mill owners in new area, it may also cause dislocation to forest growth. It is also found that there is mis-utilisation of saw mills in the name of
2
rehabilitation. The view of the apex Court, with regard to rehabilitation of saw mills, was that those saw mills which were closed down are required to be rehabilitated. Rehabilitation does not mean that the closed saw mills would be permitted to open at a new place where industries are established. Needless to say that the saw mill owners, whose saw mills have been closed for more than 15 years back, they are quite seasoned with their business for timber. In the event they are permitted to open saw mills at a different place, the nature of business they are carrying on may affect the environment, as it would lead to cutting down more and more trees, which will also affect the human habitation. This fact also be taken care of while rehabilitating closed saw mills at a different place, as per direction given by the apex Court. Therefore, precautions and remedies should be taken by the Forest Department, so that no malfeasance or misfeasance of the forest source could be done by any of the saw mill owners, who have been permitted to open saw mills at a different place than the place where they were earlier permitted to open the saw mills and have been closed down by the authority. It has been brought to notice that 102, out of 165 saw mills, which have been closed down earlier, now have been permitted to open by way of rehabilitation. But, remaining saw mill owners are on the queue and they will be permitted only when they will comply with the guidelines issued by the Forest Department. The Forest Department has to ensure that in the name of rehabilitating the saw mills, the forest
3
resources made available should not be destroyed. In the event of any destruction thereof, the authorities, who are in the helm of affairs, will be put to task, because the human habitation now facing severe crisis for their survival. In the interest of justice, equity and fair-play, both the human habitation and the forest growth simultaneously should have a healthy atmosphere, as because any damage caused to the forest resources would definitely jeopardize human habitation.
The petitioner has filed this application to quash the notification No. 10F (Legal) 29/2018 15644/F & E, dated 18.07.2018 in Annexure-3, by which the Government of Odisha, Forest and Environment Department has constituted a State Level Committee with higher officers of the Government for taking decisions regarding grant of licence/permission to the wood based industries subject to compliance of prescribed guidelines and procedure issued by Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, Government of India, New Delhi.
Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner, being a closed saw mill owner, seeks for rehabilitation and as such, his name finds place in the rehabilitation list prepared by the Government, yet he has not been rehabilitated. Therefore, the petitioner has challenged the notification dated 18.07.2018 in Annexure-3, where decision has been taken for constitution of State Level Committee for taking decision regarding the grant of licence/permission to the
4
wood based industries.
Mr. B. Senapati, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State contended that a committee has been constituted for grant of licence/permission to the wood based industries subject to compliance of the prescribed guidelines and procedure issued by Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, Government of India, New Delhi. So far as rehabilitation of the petitioner is concerned, it has no nexus with committee constituted in Annexure-3. If the petitioner’s name find place in the rehabilitation list, as and when his term will come, he will be rehabilitated, which has nothing to do with the impugned notification.
Mr. J. Pattnaik, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. B. Mohanty, learned counsel for intervener- opposite party no.8 contended that the intervener is coming under the wood based industry. Thereby, by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court, although the committee has been constituted, opposite party no.8 is prejudiced by not getting license or permission in consonance with the guidelines or procedure issued by the Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change, Government of India.
Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, it appears that the claim of the petitioner has no nexus with the notification under Annexure-3, which is impugned herein. If the petitioner, being a saw mill owner, claims for rehabilitation and his name finds place
5
in the rehabilitation list, as and when his term will come, he will be rehabilitated by the authority concerned. But, by the present notification issued in Annexure-3 dated 18.07.2018, a State Level Committee has been constituted for taking a decision regarding grant of licence/permission to the wood based industries subject to the compliance of the prescribed guidelines and procedures issued by Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, Government of India. If the committee has been constituted in consonance with the guidelines for granting licence/permission to wood based industries, that will not cause any prejudice to the petitioner in any manner whatsoever. Thereby, the challenge made in the writ application is by a person, who seeks for rehabilitation of his saw mill and is completely a different person, inasmuch as the committee has been constituted for the purpose of granting licence to the wood based industries. In that view of the matter, this court is of the considered view that the writ petition merits no consideration, accordingly, the same is dismissed. Interim order passed earlier, stands vacated.
Personal appearance of Mr. Pravakar Behera, Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Odisha is dispensed with.
…………….…………… (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE
Ajaya
6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's claim for rehabilitation of a closed saw mill is legally connected to the notification constituting a State Level Committee for licensing wood based industries.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner (Closed Saw Mill Owner)
Government of Odisha / State Government
Intervener-opposite party no.8
B.R. Sarangi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
