Disposed

Sumitra Saw Mill v. the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Aranya Bhawan Chandrasekharpur

Orissa HC22 Dec 2020WP(C)/30494/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by a saw mill challenging non-rehabilitation in a committee meeting. Court directs the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest to decide the pending rehabilitation application within three months with an opportunity of hearing without expressing merit opinion.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Principal Chief Conservator of Forest to decide the pending rehabilitation application within three months with opportunity of hearing.

Sumitra Saw Mill Vs the Principal Chief Conservator… — Environment and Pollution | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 30494 of 2020

¶2

22.12.2020 Due to outbreak of COVID-19, this matter is taken up through Video Conferencing.

¶3

Heard Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite party.

¶4

The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is with regard to the decision in the meeting dated 21.11.2014 (Annexure-3), so far as the petitioner Unit (Saw mill) is concerned. The petitioner prays for a direction for rehabilitation of the Unit as per the guidelines in the gazette notification dated 30.07.2011 (Annexure-2) issued by the Orissa Forest & Environment Department further prayer is made to place the case of the petitioner-Unit before the State Level Committee, as there was no forest offence record in respect of the said Unit, as per the information obtained under the Right Information Act, 2005 on 23.02.2015 (Annexure-4).

¶5

Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-Unit, namely, M/s. Sumitra Saw Mill was functioning under a valid license. After enactment of Orissa Saw Mills and Saw Pits (Control) Act, 1991 (for short, ‘the Act’) and Rules framed thereunder, the petitioner-Unit along with several Saw Mills came to be closed. Subsequently, pursuant to the direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) took up the issue and

¶6

¶7

submitted a report before Hon’ble Supreme Court recommending suitable amendment in the provisions of the Act. As such, Hon’ble Supreme Court suggested suitable amendment in the provisions of the Act for rehabilitation of the Saw Mills in the State of Odisha. Accordingly, amendments were carried out in the Act. It was decided that the Saw Mills having no offence record should be allowed to be rehabilitated. But, unfortunately, the case of the petitioner-Unit was not recommended for rehabilitation in the tenth meeting of the Committee on Saw Mills held on 21.11.2014 (Annexure-3). The reason for which the petitioner-Unit was not considered for rehabilitation is as under:

¶8

8. M/s. Sumitra Saw Mill,	Cuttack/Jag atsinghpur	List-III	Since out of two cases booked
At-Sadheisasan,			against the Saw
P.O.-			Mill, one Case vide
Anakhia,			No.62JSP of 2009-
Dist-			10 has been
Jagatsinghpur,			booked after the
Prop.-Sri			date of cancellation
Bichitrananda			of licence i.e.
Biswal			30.01.2006, the
			Committee did not consider for rehabilitation of the Saw Mill.

¶9

Assailing the same, the petitioner moved this Court in W.P.(C) No.4973 of 2015 and the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 04.02.2019 with the following direction.

¶10

“Considering the limited request involved herein and after going through the information available

¶11

¶12

through document filed, vide memo dtd. 04.02.2018, this Court permits the petitioner to approach the Committee for review of the order at SI No.8 page 36 involving the petitioner’s case. This Court makes it clear that it has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case except leaving it open for consideration of the authority to take a decision of the basis of further document to be provided by the petitioner.

¶13

The writ petition disposed of with the above permission only.”

¶14

As the proprietor of petitioner-Unit met with an accident, he could not file the review petition and he could not comply with the direction made in W.P.(C) No.4973 of 2015 immediately. But after recovery, he forthwith filed an application on 04.09.2020 (Annexure6) before the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Odisha-opposite party No.1. It is his submission that no action has yet been taken on the same. Hence, he prays for the aforesaid relief.

¶15

Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submits that since an application pursuant to the direction of this Court as under Annexure-6 is stated to be pending before the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Odisha-opposite party No.1, a direction may be made to take a decision on the same, at an early date, in accordance with law.

¶16

Taking into consideration the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that since an application as at

¶17

¶18

Annexure-6 is pending before the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Odisha-opposite party No.1 pursuant to the direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4973 of 2015, the opposite party No.1 is required to take a decision on the same, in accordance with law.

¶19

Accordingly, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case of the petitioner, disposes of the writ petition with a direction that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Odisha–opposite party No.1 shall do well to take a decision on the application of the petitioner dated 04.09.2020 (Annexure6) in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of an authenticated copy of this order, giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and communicate the same to the petitioner forthwith.

¶20

An authenticated copy of this order downloaded from the website of this Court shall be treated at par with certified copy in the manner prescribed in this Court’s Notice No.4587 dated 25.03.2020.

¶21

..………………………….

¶22

K.R. Mohapatra, J.

¶23

bct

Sumitra Saw Mill v. the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Aranya Bhawan Chandrasekharpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumitra Saw Mill v. the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Aranya Bhawan Chandrasekharpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Purandar Sahu Vs Prahallad Sahu

Kapil @ Kapilendra Mohapatra Vs Manoj Manjari Mohapatra

Chinmaya Bhusan Dash Vs Amruti Patra

Suraj Nayak Vs Pabitra Senapati

Sabitri Sahoo Vs Kanhu Ch.Patra and Ors.

Jyotirmay Gupta Vs Rakhal Parida