Jainagar Saw Mill vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 82 Jhar

                                           1



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                           W. P. (C) No. 1570 of 2012

         Jainagar Saw Mill, situated at Jainagar, P.O. & P.S. Jainagar,
         Distt. Koderma through its proprietor, namely, Shahnawaz Khan,
         son of Late Abdul Rajak Khan resident of Jainagar, P.O. & P.S.
         Jainagar, Distt. Koderma (Jharkhand)      ...     ...       Petitioner
                                Versus
      1. The State of Jharkhand
      2. The Secretary, Forest and Environment Department, Govt. of
         Jharkhand, Ranchi having office at Nepal House, P.O. & P.S.
         Doranda, Ranchi (Jharkhand)
      3. The Licensing Authority-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Koderma
         Forest Division, Koderma (Jharkhand)
      4. The Prescribed Authority-Cum-Conservator of Forests, Hazaribagh
         Circle, Hazaribagh (Jharkhand)
      5. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Govt. of Bihar
                                            ...        ...        Respondents
                                ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

11/04.01.2023

1. Heard Mr. Sachi Nandan Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner along with Mr. Om Prakash Singh, Advocate.

2. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondents.

3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: -

"for issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s)

(i) For quashing the Office Order No. 01 dated 16.05.2007 (Annexure-

5) passed by the Respondent No. 3 whereby and whereunder the License of the petitioner i.e. Jainagar Saw Mill has been cancelled.

(ii) For quashing the order dated 25.11.2011 (Annexure-6) passed by the Respondent No. 4 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioner through its Proprietor namely, Shahnawaz Khan has been dismissed thereby upholding the order dated 16.05.2007 passed by the Respondent No. 3.

Whereas the aforesaid orders passed by the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are based on misconceived facts and misconceived interpretation of law and hence, these impugned orders are liable to be quashed by this Hon'ble Court under its inherent powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and accordingly, the license of the saw mill-in-question is fit to be restored forthwith.

AND The petitioner further prays before this Hon'ble Court for allowing the aforesaid licensee saw mill to function with immediate effect till final disposal of the present writ application.

AND/OR For issuance of any other appropriate writ(s)/direction(s)/order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper for the ends of justice under the facts and circumstances of the case."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a licensee saw mill whose proprietor is Shahnawaz Khan. The required certification for establishing a saw mill was issued to the petitioner as back as on 26.04.1986 (Annexure-1). The required licenses were also issued to the petitioner and renewed from time to time up to 31.12.2002. The learned counsel submits that in the year 2002, a direction was issued by the respondent No. 3 to shift the saw mill 5 Kms. away from the forest area before June, 2003 and he was also given show cause for non-compliance of the direction and therefore, vide order dated 17.01.2004, the license of the petitioner was suspended and a show cause was issued as to why the license of the saw mill be not cancelled. Subsequently, on 10.05.2004, the proprietor of the saw mill, namely, Shahnawaz Khan executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Manoj Kumar. Thereafter, a representation was filed before the respondent No. 3 for permission for shifting the saw mill to an alternative site beyond more than 5 Kms away from the forest area and such permission was granted on 07.09.2005 in Appeal No. 06/2005 by the respondent No. 4 directing the respondent No. 3 to allow three months' time for shifting the saw mill. In the meantime, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed a judgment in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India & Others and consequently, a show cause was issued to the petitioner vide letter dated 14.11.2005 as to why the license of the petitioner saw mill be not cancelled having been granted after 12.12.1996 and ultimately, the license which was renewed vide letter dated 29.12.1999 was cancelled vide order dated 16.05.2007, against which the petitioner filed appeal being Appeal No. 01/2008, which was dismissed vide order dated 25.11.2011.

5. The learned counsel submits that the original order of cancellation as well as the appellate order are under challenge before this Court. He submits that the license was already granted in favour of the petitioner and right accrued in favour of the petitioner, therefore, it should not have been cancelled and the impugned orders call for interference by this Court.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the impugned orders, this Court finds that the appellate authority has clearly recorded that as per provisions of Bihar Saw Mill Regulation Act, 1990, the existing Saw Mill owners were required to apply for the saw mill license under the new Act within the prescribed time limit of 30 days, which was not done in the instant case and at the relevant point of time, the saw mill was closed as per the admission of the Proprietor of the saw mill for the period from 1990 to 1999 and thereafter, the application was made by Shri Manoj Kumar in the year 1999.

7. The learned appellate authority, after perusing the records of the case, found that the petitioner saw mill was issued different license numbers in different years. It was first issued license in the year 1986 vide DFO, Koderma memo dated 11.11.1986, which was wrongly mentioned as license no. 13 of 1986 as the license did not mention this license number. This license was issued under Bihar Saw Pit/ and Depot rules. Later on, in the year 1989, the license was renewed as license no. 4 of 1981. Thereafter, the license was renewed in the year 1999 vide DFO Koderma letter no. 2824 dated 29.12.1999 as license no. 18, but it mentioned the period of license as 01.01.1990 to 31.12.1990. The period had some cutting and it was difficult to comprehend that in the year 1999, the license was issued for the year 1990. As claimed by the petitioner, another license No. as 19 for the period 01.01.1999 to 31.12.1999 was issued by DFO Koderma Forest Division vide memo no. 2825 dated 29.12.1999 and thereafter, another letter no. 515 dated 06.04.2000 was claimed to be issued for the period from 01.01.2000 to 06.04.2000 wherein the license number was not mentioned. A letter was filed by the petitioner bearing license no. 12 of 1994 and memo no. 2581 dated 07.12.2002 mentioning the period upto 31.12.2002. The appellate authority recorded that the license documents filed on different dates mention the saw mill plot as 772 in the year 1986 and 1989 but plot no. 5006 was mentioned in the license issued in the year 1999 for the period 01.01.1990 to 31.12.1990 and again plot no. 772 was mentioned in the year 2000 and 2002.

8. The learned appellate authority further recorded that as per record of the division, the license issued in the year 1986 mentioned the license number as 19 of 11.11.1986 for the establishment of depot as per the relevant rules for establishment of saw pit and depot, but the petitioner could not run the depot and reported to Divisional Forest Officer. Thereafter, DFO prosecuted the petitioner in the year 1989 for establishment of saw mill without proper permission, but this case was compounded. Later on, license was further renewed vide DFO Koderma letter no. 1345 dated 03.06.1999 and license no. was 4 of 1989 for saw mill/depot. The petitioner again applied for license renewal for the year 1990 on 11.12.1989, but DFO Koderma informed him that application has to be submitted again under the new rules vide letter dated 11.05.1990 and a reminder to this letter was also issued. Thereafter, Shri Shahnawaj Khan applied under the new Act for the first time on 30.10.1999 through Manaoj Kumar and DFO, Koderma vide memo dated 29.12.1999 issued the saw mill license for the period from 01.01.1990 to 31.12.1990 and later on, vide letter no. 2825 dated 29.12.1999, the license was renewed for the period from 01.01.1999 to 31.12.1999. The appellate authority ultimately dismissed the appeal by holding as follows: -

"As per the relevant sections of the Bihar saw mill (regulation) act 1990, the existing saw mill owners were required to apply for the saw mill license under the new act within a prescribed time limit of 30 days, which was not done in this case. However, at that time the saw mill was closed as per the admission of the Proprietor of the saw mill for a period from 1990 to 1999. Thereafter, the applications were made by shri Manoj Kumar in the year 1999.

The license issued in the year 1999 by the licensing authority for the period 1.1.1990 to 31.12.1990 cannot be hold good in the eye of law. Besides, violation of the Supreme court order in T N Godaverman case dated 12.12.1996 and other orders of the state Government is also mentioned by the licensing authority."

9. From perusal of the impugned appellate order, this Court finds that the entire factual and legal aspects of the matter have been taken into consideration based on records of the department and considering

the various documents produced by the petitioner and it has been ultimately held that at the relevant point of time, the saw mill was closed and has held that the license issued in the year 1999 by the licensing authority for the period 1.1.1990 to 31.12.1990 cannot hold good in the eye of law. This Court finds that the impugned order is a well-reasoned order and does not suffer from any illegality or perversity calling for any interference.

10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no case for interference in the impugned orders has been made out by the petitioner. Consequently, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed.

11. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

12. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Mukul