Allahabad High Court
Pradeep Kumar Saxena vs State Of U.P. And Others on 21 July, 2015
Bench: Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, Chief Justice, Yashwant Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Chief Justice's Court AFR
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10114 of 2012
Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Saxena
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud,Chief Justice
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
In these proceedings, the petitioner has called into question an order dated 3 December 2011 passed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, holding that the licence granted to the petitioner for conducting a saw mill stands cancelled since the distance between the saw mill and the reserved forest is 4.66 kms. However, liberty was granted to the petitioner, should he desire to relocate the saw mill beyond the distance of 10 kilometres, to submit a fresh application for consideration.
The basis of the order of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest was a direction issued by the Supreme Court in T N Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India1. Insofar as is material to these proceedings, the direction issued by the Supreme Court is as follows:
"A. In the State of Uttar Pradesh the following is permitted -
1. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (PCCF) may, on a case-to-case basis, consider grant of permission to an existing licensed saw mill to relocate itself, provided that the relocated site is not within 10 kms of any existing forest."
In the counter affidavit filed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest on 28 February 2012, it has been stated that the petitioner purchased a saw mill licence bearing 47/92/Atrauli and by a communication dated 30 November 2004 of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, the saw mill was relocated to plot no.99, khasra 382 Quarsi Road, Ram Ghat, Aligarh with a condition that the relocated site should not be within 10 kms from an existing forest. The Divisional Forest Officer, Aligarh issued a saw mill licence No.64/2009 on 6 September 2009. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, by a letter dated 29 April 2011, reiterated that in view of the order of the Supreme Court dated 8 May 1997, the relocated saw mill should not be within 10 kms from the existing forest. The saw mill of the petitioner was found to be within 4.66 kms from the nearest forest block on the basis of the following GPS data:
Division
Name of Saw Mill owner
GPS reading of relocated saw mill
GPS reading of nearest forest block
Distance from nearest forest block (in Km)
Aligarh
Pradeep Kumar Saxena
27°54'64.0"N
078°06'59.5"E
27°57'36.6"N
78°5'3.30"E
4.66 Km
It has been stated in the counter affidavit that the Divisional Forest Officer has afforded sufficient opportunity to the petitioner for a personal hearing and to present a written statement by a letter dated 20 May 2011. In response to the letter, the petitioner presented a written statement on 27 May 2011. A personal hearing was also held on 27 May 2011. It was found that the petitioner had not substantiated the case that the saw mill was not located within 10 kms from the nearest Chherat forest block or that it was outside the limits of the Nagar Nigam. Following this, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, revoked the order dated 30 November 2004 on 21 November 2011. While directing a closure of the operation of the saw mill, it has been provided that in case, the saw mill owner is willing to shift his saw mill beyond 10 kms from the forest area, a relocation proposal may be sent.
In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the GPS data was relied upon to compute the distance between the relocated site of the saw mill and the existing forest. In this regard, during the course of the submissions, a reference has been made to the provisions contained in Section 11 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 under which measurement of distances for the purposes of any Act or Regulation made after the commencement of the said Act shall, unless a different intention appears, be measured in a straight line on a horizontal plane. This principle was accepted in a judgment of a Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Shaik Hussain v. Divisional Forest Officer, Proddatur2.
Though it has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that the conclusion of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest to the effect that the saw mill of the petitioner was within a distance of 10 kms is not correct, absolutely no material has been placed on the record or drawn to the attention of the Court during the course of these proceedings to displace the finding of fact. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India3 in support of the submission that the Supreme Court has expected that there should be regular updating and creation of a GIS based decision support database.
The basic issue is that, if the petitioner was aggrieved by the finding that the distance of his saw mill from the reserved forest was not beyond the distance of 10 kms, as mandated in the order of the Supreme Court dated 8 May 1997, at least some cogent material ought to have been placed on the record which would have warranted the Court to scrutinize the matter. In the absence thereof, the Court cannot proceed either on the basis of hypothesis or surmise or come to a conclusion that the finding of fact recorded by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest was erroneous.
For these reasons, we see no reason to entertain the writ petition. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 21.7.2015
RKK/-
(Yashwant Varma, J) (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, CJ)
