Madras High Court
S.Balachandran vs The Assistant Engineer on 29 April, 2021
W.P.(MD)No.7758 of 2012
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :29.04.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.(MD)No.7758 of 2012
S.Balachandran : Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Assistant Engineer,
Distribution / Thirunagar,
Madurai Electricity Distribution Region, TANGEDCO, Madurai.
2. The Member Secretary,
Central Empowered Committee,
Gate No.31, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003.
3. The Superintendent Engineer,
TANGEDCO, Madurai.
4. The District Collector,
Collectorate, Madurai District.
5. The District Forest Officer,
Office of the District Forest Officer, Madurai Division,
Madurai, Madurai District.
6. The General Manager,
District Industries Centre, Madurai. : Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the first respondent
from disconnecting the electrical power supply to the petitioner's Saw Mill,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/8
W.P.(MD)No.7758 of 2012
namely, Kamadhenu Sawmill, situated at Kottaisamy Nagar,
Thirupparankundrm, Madurai-5, bearing service connection No.054-007-923,
without following the due process of law.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
For R-1 & R-3 : Mrs.M.Rajeswari
for Mr.S.M.S.Johny Basha
Standing Counsel
For R-4 to R-6 : Mrs.M.Rajeswari
Government Advocate
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed for the issue of a Writ of
Mandamus forbearing the first respondent from disconnecting the power supply
given to the Sawmill belonging to the petitioner in Service Connection
No.054-007-923.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the Sawmill is being run from
the year 1999 onwards. According to the petitioner, he possesses the permanent
Registration Certificate and the Forest Range Officer was also renewing the
license every year upto the year 2010. Thereafter, the renewal application was
kept pending with the fifth respondent.
3. In the mean time, the petitioner was called to attend the enquiry
before the State Level Committee to establish that his Sawmill was functioning
even prior to 30.10.2002. The petitioner submitted all the relevant documents
to substantiate the fact that the Sawmill was running much prior to 30.10.2002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.7758 of 2012
4. The petitioner also received show cause notice from the first
respondent calling upon the petitioner to give his explanation and to show cause
as to why the electricity supply should not be disconnected. The petitioner also
gave his explanation.
5. The apprehension of the petitioner is that the first respondent
without understanding the purport of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in W.P.(C) No.202 of 1995, was attempting to disconnect the electricity
connection in spite of the petitioner informing the first respondent that the
orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court will only apply to those Sawmills
which have commenced their operations subsequent to 29.10.2002.
6. Heard Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner, Mrs.M.Rajeswari, learned counsel representing
Mr.S.M.S.Johny Basha, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents 1 and 3 and Mrs.M.Rajeswari, learned Government Advocate,
appearing on behalf of the respondents 4 to 6.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
brought to the notice of this Court the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of T.N.Godararman Thirumalpad Vs. Union of India and others in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.7758 of 2012
I.A.No.2365 in Writ Petition (s) (Civil) No(S).202 / 1995. The relevant
portions in the Judgment are extracted hereunder:-
“CATEGORY I- MATTERS RELATNG TO WOOK BASED
INDUSTRIES:
We have heard Shri Harish Salve, learned amicus Curiae,
Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General of India, Shri
K.K.Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel and other learned
Senior Counsel / Counsels. Accordingly, we pass the following
orders:
The State Level Committees for Wood-Based Industries
(“SLCs”) are, subject to the compliance of the prescribed
guidelines and procedure, authorized to take decisions regarding
the grant of license / permission to the wood-based industries;
(ii).In each State / UT for which the SLC has so far not
been constituted, the SLC under the Chairmanship of the
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests with a representative of
the Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change
(“MoEFCC”) and an Officer of the State Forest Department /
Industries Department not below the rank of the Chief
Conservator of Forests / equivalent rank will immediately be
constituted.
(iii).The MoEF is authorized to issue appropriate
guidelines in conformation with the orders and directions issued
by this Court and also the existing guidelines to the SLCs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.7758 of 2012
relating to assessment of timber availability for wood-based
industries and grant of license / permission to the wood-based
industries including addition of new machineries and also
utilisation of amounts recovered from the wood-based industries
and connected matters;
(iv).Any person aggrieved by the decision taken by the SLC
may file an appeal before the MoEFCC seeking appropriate
relief within 60 days' time. If, for any reason, any person is
aggrieved by the orders so passed in the appeal, he may prefer
an appropriate petition / application / appeal before the
appropriate forum / Court for grant of appropriate relief(s).
We also permit the MoEFCC to condone the delay, if any,
in filing an appeal, if sufficient cause is made out by the
applicant (s) / appellants (s).
The amounts lying with the respective State Forest
Departments (recovered from wood based industries) will be
utilized for the purpose of afforestation only.
The respective State Forest Departments will intimate the
amount (s) spent by them for afforestation purpose to MoEFCC
at the earliest.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, we dispose
of the Interlocutory Applications / matters specified in Annexure-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.7758 of 2012
I to the note supplied by Shri Harish Salve, learned amicus
Curiae.”
8. It is clear from the above that the State Level Committee for the
Wood Based Industries has been directed to be formed in order to consider the
grant of license / permission for Wood Based Industries to continue with other
operations.
9. It is brought to the notice of this Court that a procedure has been
evolved in the State of Tamil Nadu. As per the said procedure, any Wood Based
Industry must submit an application before the concerned District Forest Officer
and the same will be forwarded by the District Forest Officer to the State Level
Committee. The State Level Committee, will thereafter, consider the
application and pass appropriate orders granting or denying the license /
permission. The petitioner has to go through this process seeking for the
license accordingly.
10. In view of the above discussion, there shall be a direction to the
petitioner to submit a fresh application before the District Forest Officer,
namely, the fifth respondent along with all the particulars. On receipt of the
application, the fifth respondent shall forward the same to the State Level
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.7758 of 2012
Committee and the State Level Committee shall take a decision with regard to
the grant of license after affording opportunity to the petitioner. This process
shall be completed within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt
of the application from the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to submit an
application along with all the necessary particulars before the fifth respondent
on or before 24.05.2021. The first respondent shall await the decision of the
State Level Committee and thereafter, depending upon the decision, shall
proceed further, in accordance with law.
11. The Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above directions.
No costs.
29.04.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
tsg
NOTE:
In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of
the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the
order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.7758 of 2012
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
tsg
To
1. The District Collector,
Collectorate, Madurai District.
2. The District Forest Officer,
Office of the District Forest Officer, Madurai Division,
Madurai, Madurai District.
3. The General Manager,
District Industries Centre, Madurai.
Order made in
W.P.(MD)No.7758 of 2012
Dated:
29.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
