Allahabad High Court
Mohd.Shafi ( Civil ) vs The State Of U.P.Through Chief ... on 23 September, 2013
Bench: Rakesh Tiwari, Vishnu Chandra Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Reserved AFR
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 2748 of 2000
Petitioner :- Mohd. Shafi
Respondents :- The State Of U.P. and others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Arif Khan
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.
Hon'ble Vishnu Chandra Gupta,J.
By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 08.05.2000 passed by the respondent no.3-Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Range, Bahraich by which the permission to install Veneer Unit in the existing Saw Mill was declined in the light of the directions dated 04.03.1997 issued by the Apex Court in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs. Union of India and others, (1997) 3 SCC 312.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
Brief facts for deciding the present petition are that the petitioner is running a Saw Mill after obtaining license under the U.P. Establishment and Regulation of Saw Mills Rules, 1978 (for short 'the Rules, 1978'). The petitioner wanted to install a Veneer Unit in the Saw Mill to start commercial production by expanding his business for which the petitioner moved an application dated 09.02.1998 (Annexure-4 to this petition) for permission to install a Veneer Unit. On the aforesaid application, the impugned order has been passed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the existing license of Saw Mill may continue as the directions of the Apex Court dated 04.03.1997 would not prohibit for running of the aforesaid Saw Mill. It was further submitted that the Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Range, Bahraich vide its order dated 21.05.1998 in case of Ramesh Kumar Agarwal made the position clear wherein he opined that if a valid licensed Saw Mill owner used to peal by installing a veneer machine that would not be illegal.
Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it was alleged that the application moved in the year 1998 for installation of Veneer Unit in the same campus cannot be permitted. It was further submitted that the Chief Conservator of Forest vide its letter dated 09.05.1998 (Annexure-7 to this petition) clearly indicates that there is no provisions in the Rules, 1978 for issuing a Veneer Unit license and it was also made clear that for installing a Veneer Unit no directions are required to be issued by the Forest Department. Inspite of that the petitioner installed the Veneer Unit which on inspection was found illegal and also the same was being run without any legal permission. Hence in reply to the notice given by the petitioner, the factual things have been informed to the petitioner by the office of Divisional Forest Officer, Bahraich its order dated 08.05.2000 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition). Para 5 of the said reply indicates the reason for not granting permission by order dated 17.03.1998, vide endorsement no.5589/37-5 (AA.MA.).
It was further pleaded in the counter affidavit that for running a veneer unit grant of license is necessary. This legal position was upheld by this Court in Writ Petition No.1794 (MB) of 2000, Sharwasti Wood Product vs. State decided on 26.04.2000 and in Writ Petition No.2249 (MB) of 2000, Shan Wood Works Vs. State decided on 19.05.2000. On the strength of these allegations, the writ petition was sought to be dismissed. No rejoinder affidavit has been filed.
We have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties.
The Apex Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad case (supra) issued directions in respect of saw mill, veneer and plywood industry in the State of U.P. The para 6 is quoted hereinbelow:
"All unlicensed saw mills, veneer and plywood industries in the State of Maharashtra and the State of Uttar Pradesh are to be closed forthwith and the State Government would not remove or relax the condition for grant of permission/license for the opening of any such saw mill, veneer and plywood industry and it shall also not grant any fresh permission/licence for this purpose. The Chief Secretary of the State will ensure strict compliance of this direction and file a compliance report within two weeks"
Admittedly, the directions have been issued by the Apex Court on 04.03.1997. The veneer unit was not installed before 04.03.1997 in the saw mill of the petitioner. The petitioner applied for installing veneer unit in the year 1998. The Apex Court categorically directed that the State Government would not remove or relax the condition for grant of permission/license for opening of any such saw mill, veneer and plywood industries and shall also not grant any fresh permission/license for this purpose. This leave no room to doubt that the application which was moved by the petitioner after issuing the directions by the Apex Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad case (supra), no permission would be granted to install the veneer unit in the existing saw mill. The act of installing the veneer unit in saw mill without permission is quite illegal and was rightly closed down by the Forest Officials. Hence no interference is required.
The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.09.2013
akverma
