Disposed

Bijaya Kumar Nayak v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC18 Apr 2023WP(C)/3278/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking direction to rehabilitate petitioner's saw mill. Court directed Conservator of Forests to decide on recommended rehabilitation within two months without expressing opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Conservator of Forests to decide on rehabilitation recommendation within two months.

Bijaya Kumar Nayak Vs State of Odisha — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 3278 OF 2023

¶2

Bijaya Kumar Nayak …. Petitioner Mr. S. Rath, Advocate

¶3

-versus-

¶4

State of Odisha and others

¶5

…. Opp. Parties

¶6

Mr. Baibaswata Panigrahi, Additional Standing Counsel

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

18.04.2023

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶14

The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks for a direction to the Opposite Parties to rehabilitate his Saw Mill as per the guidelines of the Government.

¶15

It is submitted by Mr. Rath, learned counsel that the Petitioner’s Saw Mill was under seizure for alleged commission of forest offences. But subsequently it was released in his favour. The Divisional Forest Officer, Puri Wildlife Division, Puri vide his Memo No.6911 dated 16^th December, 2019 (Annexure-6 series) had communicated the Conservator of Forests (FU)-cumMember Convenor, O/O the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Odisha, Bhubaneswar stating that there was no confiscation proceeding pending against the Saw Mill of the Petitioner and therefore he recommended the case of the Petitioner for issuance of Saw Mill license.

¶16

It is submitted by Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner that in spite of his recommendation, no step has been taken for issuance of Saw Mill license in favour of the Petitioner.

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

// 2 //

¶19

Hence, the Petitioner finding no other alternative has filed this writ petition.

¶20

Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner further drawing attention of this Court to the memo under Annexure-6 series submits that the case has been recommended to the Government for condonation of the offence as per Paragraph-3(b) of the guidelines for rehabilitation of saw mill. Relevant portion of Annexure-6 series reads as under:

¶21

“On examination of case records, it is understood that chankunda sizes (03 nos) have been seized from the saw mill premises which is an exempted species. One old electric motor (10 H.P.), one old saw blade, one old wheel and one bag of saw dust were also seized. Main components of a saw mill were not seized. The licensing officer has confiscated the seized produce. As stated by the accused, the said saw mill was not running when the raid was conducted. Copy of the seizure list and confiscation order of licensing officer is enclosed herewith for your kind reference. The offence committed is not grievous. The Govt. may be moved to condone the offence as per para-3(b) of the guideline for rehabilitation of saw mill.”

¶22

It is also submitted that the case of the Petitioner comes under List-II of the list of the saw mills against which offence cases have been booked and finalized. It is submitted that the case booked against the Petitioner has been finalized on 4^th May, 2010. Thus, it is a fit case to be considered by the Government for condoning the offence and to direct the authorities for issuance of license to run the saw mill.

¶23

Mr. Panigrahi, learned Additional Standing Counsel on instruction submits that confiscation proceeding against the saw mill of the Petitioner has not yet been disposed of and is still pending, for which no step has been taken on the recommendation of the Divisional Forest Officer for issuance of license.

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

// 3 //

¶26

Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that he does not have any instruction with regard to pendency of the confiscation proceeding.

¶27

Taking into consideration the rival contentions of the parties as well as the recommendation made by the Divisional Forest Officer, Puri Wildlife Division, Puri, this Court is of the considered opinion that since it is recommendated to the Conservator of Forests (FU)-cum-Member Convenor, O/O the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Odisha, BhubaneswarOpposite Party No.3, he should take a decision on Annexure-6 series as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶28

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶29

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case of the Petitioner.

¶30

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶31

¶32

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶33

Page 3 of 3

Bijaya Kumar Nayak v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bijaya Kumar Nayak v. State of Odisha

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

Subash Meher Vs Khiraswari Meher

Kshirod Ch.Das@Babu Vs Ellora Das@Tikina

Narendra Naik Vs Chabirani Khosla

Devi Gidwani Vs Nimish Atha

Manoranjan Sing Vs Pratima Sing

Jayanti Sundaray Vs State of Odisha