Mukesh Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 3663 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
               W.P.(C) No.3649 of 2022
                           -----

Mukesh Singh                                    .......... Petitioner.
                         -Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand

2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Head of the Forest Force, Van Bhawan, Doranda, Ranchi.

3. Conservator of Forest, Van Bhawan, Doranda, Ranchi.

4. Divisional Forest Officer, Medininagar, Forest Colony, Medininagar, District Palamau.

.......... Respondents.

-----

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

-----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, A.C. to Sr. S.C.III

-----

Order No.03 Date: 13.09.2022

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing office order no.48 dated 27th July, 2022, as contained in memo no.2095 dated 27th July, 2022 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent no.4, whereby the petitioner's Licence no.01 of 2022 for running depot relating to stock and sale of timber (Bota and Chiran), bamboo and other wooden raw materials has been cancelled. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent no.4 to provide an opportunity to the petitioner for shifting his depot relating to aforesaid wooden products beyond five kilometres from the nearest boundary of the notified forest area. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondent no.4 to grant fresh licence to him for the said purpose.

Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, learned A.C. to Sr. S.C.III, appearing on behalf of the respondents refers to a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Ram Pukar Sharma Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and other analogous cases, reported in 2019(2) JLJR 496, and submits that the issue with respect to optimum distance of saw mills as five kilometres from the nearest boundary of the notified forest area has been put at rest. Since the petitioner's depot with respect to stock and sale of timber (Bota and Chiran), bamboo and other wooden raw materials is situated within five kilometres of the notified forest area, the impugned office order dated 27th July, 2022 cancelling the petitioner's licence has rightly been passed.

On this, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to paragraph no.39 of the said judgment and submits that even after dismissal of the writ petitions, the petitioners of the said cases were given liberty to file respective applications before the concerned licensing authorities for consideration of their cases of renewal/grant of licenses after shifting their respective saw mills in terms with the decision of the Government of Jharkhand and the concerned authorities were directed to take appropriate decision within two months of filing of such applications.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Ram Pukar Sharma (Supra.), the relevant paragraphs of which read as under:-

"36. The interference of this court has been sought under its extraordinary writ jurisdiction against the decision of the State Government fixing the optimum distance of saw mills as 5 Kms. from the notified forest in pursuance of direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and on the basis of the finding of the expert committee. In my opinion, it would not be appropriate to exercise the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution in view of the fact that increase of population, urbanisation and industrialisation has led to mushrooming of saw mills and other wood based industries which resulted in rapid depletion of forest cover. Thus, the same has resulted in serious ecological imbalance which is an alarming situation and it was required to be checked at the earliest. No material has been brought on record by the petitioners to show that the decision of the State Government is illegal or incorrect so as to warrant any interference in writ jurisdiction. The petitioners have also not contended that the respondent authorities should have fixed any lesser distance than 05 kms. from the notified forest area for location of wood based industries for any justified reason, rather the petitioners have put challenge to the very decision of the state government itself fixing the distance of 05 kms. from the notified forest area.

37. In the case of Sachldanand Pandey vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (1987)2 SCC 295, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had the occasion to deal with the question of interference by Courts in matters having bearing on the environment. In para 4 of the said judgment it is held as under:--

"4. .........Whenever a problem of ecology is brought before the Court, the Court is bound to bear in mind Article 48-A of the Constitution, Directive Principle which enjoins that "The State shall endeavour to protect and Improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country", and Article 51A(g) which proclaims it to be the fundamental duty of every citizen of India "to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures." When the Court is called upon to give effect to the Directive Principle and the fundamental duty, the Court is not to shrug its shoulders and say that priorities are a matter of policy and so it is a matter for the policy-making authority. The least that the Court may do is to examine whether appropriate considerations are borne in mind and irrelevancies excluded. In appropriate cases, the Court may go further, but how much further must depend on the circumstances of the case. The Court may always give necessary directions. However, the Court will not attempt

to nicely balance relevant considerations. When the question involves the nice balancing of relevant considerations, the Court may feel Justified in resigning itself to acceptance of the decision of the concerned authority. ............"

38. As already observed hereinabove, the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 12-12-96 and subsequent orders referred to above are intended to protect and safeguard the forests and environment and those directions can neither be fully implemented nor the forests and environment can effectively be safeguarded without regulating the business affairs of saw mills and other timber-related industries i.e., plywood and veneer mills etc. As the impugned notices were issued to the petitioners in the light of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no interference in this regard is warranted so as to permit unregulated and unchecked running of saw mills and other wood based industries.

39. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the discussions made herein above, all these writ petitions are hereby dismissed. However, the petitioners, after shifting the saw mills in terms with the decision of the Government of Jharkhand, are at liberty to file respective applications before the concerned licensing authorities for consideration of their cases of renewal/grant of licenses which shall be considered by said authorities in accordance with law and appropriate decision shall be taken within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of respective applications from the petitioners on shifting of their saw mills beyond the distance of 05 kms. from the nearest boundary of the notified forest."

Considering that the issue raised in the present writ petition has already been decided in the aforesaid judgment of this Court, the impugned order dated 27th July, 2022 does not require any interference. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

The petitioner is, however, given liberty to file an application before the respondent no.4 for renewal/grant of fresh licence after shifting the depot beyond five kilometres from the nearest boundary of the notified forest area. On receipt of the said application, the respondent no.4 shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of the said application.

(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Sanjay/