Orissa High Court
M/S Kalinga Saw Mill vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ... on 31 October, 2025
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 31-Oct-2025 20:11:56
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.7754 of 2025
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
M/S Kalinga Saw Mill, .... Petitioner(s)
Bhubaneswar
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jagabandhu Sahoo, Sr. Adv.
Along with
Ms.Kajal Sahoo, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-08.09.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-31.10.2025
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The Petitioner, in this Writ Petition, seeks a direction from this Court
to the Opposite Parties to issue saw mill license in its favour for
rehabilitation of its saw mill at the nearby Barunei notified designated
Industrial Estate to run the saw mill within a stipulated time.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) The Petitioner was carrying on the business of a saw mill under
the proprietorship concern styled as M/s. Kalinga Saw Mill,
pursuant to Saw Mill Licence No. 56/91, which had been duly
granted in his favour by the competent Licensing Authority on
12.07.1991, in accordance with the statutory mandate and in due
compliance with the regulatory requirements prescribed under
the relevant enactments governing the control and operation of
saw mills.
(ii) It is discernible from the official correspondence that the
Opposite Party No.3 vide Letter No.14879 dated 01.10.2011
addressed to the Principal Secretary to Government, Forest and
Environment Department, had prepared and transmitted a
comprehensive seniority list of licensed saw mills operating in
all districts of the State of Odisha, while strictly adherence to the
policy guidelines framed and notified by the said Department
vide Notification No.13891 dated 30.07.2011, promulgated under
its statutory and regulatory competence to ensure uniformity,
transparency, and administrative propriety in the regulation of
saw mill operations.
(iii) As evident from the seniority list, the Petitioner's saw mill,
named M/s. Kalinga Saw Mill, figures at Serial No. 9 of List-1
pertaining to Khordha District, without any notation of offence
or infraction. The said record further delineates that the
Petitioner had lawfully operated the saw mill under a valid
licence from 12.07.1991 to 08.07.1997, for a cumulative duration
of 1,098 days. It also records that the Petitioner's father, being the
then proprietor, had continued the operation of the said unit
under the protective umbrella of an interim stay order granted
by this Hon'ble Court between 19.11.2001 and 18.05.2002,
spanning 181 days.
(iv) The State Government, vide Notification No.13891 dated
30.07.2011, issued detailed guidelines regulating the
establishment, relocation, and operation of saw mills within the
State of Odisha. As per the said guidelines, the Industries
Department was required to identify suitable industrial estates--
restricted to a maximum of two per district--for accommodating
such saw mills. The Department was also directed to indicate the
specific sheds or areas available within the identified estates for
the aforesaid purpose. Thesaid guidelines further stipulated that
priority in relocation and rehabilitation shall be accorded to saw
mills which had been functioning for a longer period under a
valid licence and against which no offence had been recorded.
Only such saw mills maintaining a clean compliance record were
eligible for rehabilitation. In cases where offences had been
booked, consideration for rehabilitation could arise only upon
prior condonation of such offences by the Government, based on
an assessment of their nature and gravity. The task of preparing
the consolidated list of eligible saw mills was entrusted to the
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Odisha (Opposite Party
No.3).
(v) The Opposite Party No.3, vide Letter No.14003 dated 28.06.2018,
issued in response to the Petitioner's representation dated
02.03.2017 pertaining to rehabilitation of the saw mill, directed
the Petitioner to approach the Divisional Forest Officer
concerned for initiation of appropriate action in accordance with
the prescribed procedure.
(vi) In compliance therewith, the Petitioner, vide Letter dated
02.04.2019 addressed to the Opposite Party No.3, submitted that
upon approaching the Opposite Party No.2, Divisional Forest
Officer, City Forest Division, Bhubaneswar, it was ascertained
that Offence Report No. 2(b)CC-3/1993 was shown to be
pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar,
registered in the name of Sri Bhagaban Das, the erstwhile
partner of the Petitioner's saw mill. Thereafter, the Opposite
Party No.2, vide Memo No.1186 dated 05.02.2020, addressed to
the Opposite Party No.3 under the subject "Rehabilitation of
Kalinga Saw Mill, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar," reported that the
case record relating to Offence Report No. 2(b)CC-3/1993 was
not available in the records of the Court of the learned S.D.J.M.,
Bhubaneswar.
(vii) The Opposite Party No.1 directed all Divisional Forest Officers
of the Territorial and Wildlife Divisions to furnish the seniority
list of saw mills together with the status of offences or cases, if
any, registered against de-licensed or closed saw mills within
their respective jurisdictions.
(viii) The Petitioner, despite making persistent representations, was
informed by the Opposite Parties that a meeting of the State
Level Committee was scheduled on 04.02.2025 to consider grant
of licences to de-licensed saw mills and other wood-based
industries.
(ix) Aggrieved by the arbitrary refusal and inaction of the Opposite
Parties in not considering the rehabilitation of the Petitioner's
saw mill under the Orissa Saw Mills and Saw Pits (Control)
Amendment Act, 2010, the Petitioner has invoked the writ
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, with great emphasis and
persuasive force, submitted as follows:
(i) the Petitioner's saw mill, M/s. Kalinga Saw Mill, indisputably
finds mention at Serial No. 9 of List-I prepared in respect of
Khordha District, which categorically encompasses those saw
mills that have been operating for a substantial duration under
valid licence and against whom no offence or infraction has been
recorded under the relevant statutory framework. The said
inclusion, it was contended, ipso facto evidences that the
Petitioner satisfies the substantive and procedural preconditions
stipulated under the applicable regulatory regime.
(ii) It was further contended that the Notification No.13891 dated
30.07.2011, issued by the Forest and Environment Department,
delineates the eligibility parameters governing the
establishment, relocation, and functioning of saw mills within
the State, particularly in the context of identified industrial
estates. The said guidelines, having been framed in exercise of
the State's regulatory authority under the Orissa Saw Mills and
Saw Pits (Control) Act, 1991 as amended by Act 18 of 2010,
explicitly mandate that preference shall be accorded to those saw
mills which have functioned for longer periods under valid
licence, coupled with an unblemished record. The Petitioner,
being duly enlisted in List-I, satisfies the twin requisites of
longevity of operation and absence of penal antecedents, and
hence stands within the zone of consideration for rehabilitation.
(iii) The Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the
Petitioner has made diligent and continuous endeavours to
ascertain the status of Offence Report No. 2(b)CC-3/1993,
including resorting to the statutory mechanism under the Right
to Information Act, 2005. The information furnished by the
Assistant State Public Information Officer, District Court,
Bhubaneswar, unequivocally discloses that the said record is not
traceable or available in judicial custody.
(iv) It was vehemently argued that when the adjudicating court
itself has acknowledged its inability to trace or locate the record
of an alleged offence dating back to 1993, the same cannot, either
on the ground of law or equity, be employed as an adverse
factor to divest the Petitioner of his statutory entitlement to
consideration for rehabilitation. The principle of lex non cogit ad
impossibilia--that the law does not compel performance of an
impossible act--was invoked to emphasize that the Petitioner
cannot be penalized for circumstances wholly beyond his
control.
(v) It was next urged that a manifest departure from the principle of
parity has occurred inasmuch as several other saw mills
similarly circumstanced, and even those enumerated under List-
II (which includes units having recorded offences), have been
extended the benefit of rehabilitation under identical policy
parameters. The denial of analogous consideration to the
Petitioner, notwithstanding his inclusion in List-I, constitutes an
arbitrary and discriminatory exercise of administrative
discretion, offending the constitutional guarantee of equality
enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
(vi) Learned Counsel further submitted that the Petitioner's case
merits sympathetic and judicious consideration for relocation
and rehabilitation within the Industrial Estate at Barunei,
Khordha, which has been duly notified by the State Government
as an industrial cluster earmarked for the establishment of saw
mills under the extant policy. The Petitioner, having operated for
a considerable duration under a valid licence, is statutorily
entitled to priority under the said guidelines, which seek to
balance environmental regulation with the legitimate industrial
interests of lawfully operating units.
(vii) It was contended that the persistent inaction and omission on
the part of Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 in processing the
Petitioner's representation and in giving effect to the policy
guidelines have resulted in serious civil and economic prejudice.
Such omission, it was urged, amounts to colourable exercise of
administrative discretion, being arbitrary, unreasonable, and
violate of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
(viii) Despite repeated approaches and representations, coupled
with assurances from departmental authorities, the matter has
been kept pending for an unreasonably long period, thereby
defeating the legitimate expectation of the Petitioner that his case
would be considered in accordance with law. The prolonged
administrative silence, it was contended, constitutes constructive
denial of justice and frustrates the object of the 2011 policy.
(ix) In the conspectus of the aforesaid submissions, Learned Senior
Counsel prayed that this Court may be pleased to issue
appropriate writ or direction commanding the Opposite Parties
to consider and grant rehabilitation of the Petitioner's saw mill
in the notified Industrial Estate at Barunei, Khordha, in strict
conformity with the Notification dated 30.07.2011 and the Orissa
Saw Mills and Saw Pits (Control) Amendment Act, 2010, within
a time-bound framework, so as to subserve the ends of justice.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
4. Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties, while strenuously opposing
the writ petition, advanced elaborate submissions, which may be
succinctly summarized as follows:
(i) At the very outset, it was contended that the present writ
petition is not maintainable, the Petitioner having invoked the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court without bona fides and
in suppression of material particulars. The Petitioner's assertion
of inclusion at Serial No. 9 of List-I is ex facie untenable, as the
said list is statutorily confined to saw mills having an
unblemished record and functioning under a subsisting and
valid licence. A litigant who approaches the writ court must, as a
matter of settled principle, do so with clean hands, and
suppression of relevant facts vitiates the invocation of equitable
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(ii) It was submitted that the Petitioner's unit is admittedly tainted
by Offence Report No. 2(b)CC-3/1993, registered for violations of
Rules 4, 12, and 14 of the Orissa Timber and Other Forest
Produce Transit Rules, 1980, which remains pending before the
Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar. The pendency of an
uncondoned offence proceedings constitutes a legal disability
under the governing policy, disentitling the Petitioner from
claiming the benefit of classification under List-I. The doctrine of
clean record eligibility, forming part of the 2011 Guidelines,
operates as a condition precedent for consideration of
rehabilitation, the non-fulfilment of which renders the
Petitioner's claim non est in law.
(iii) It was further contended that the Petitioner's saw mill was
established and operated within the statutorily prohibited radius
of ten kilometres from the boundary of a reserved forest, thereby
attracting the absolute embargo under Sections 4 and 5 of the
Orissa Saw Mills and Saw Pits (Control) Act, 1991. The
prohibition so imposed, being statutory in nature and in
furtherance of environmental conservation, is absolute, leaving
no discretion to the administrative authority to condone or
regularize an illegality ex post facto. The licence issued in 1991,
valid only until 12.07.1994, thus stood automatically lapsed upon
expiry, and no renewal could have been lawfully granted in
contravention of the statutory prohibition.
(iv) Learned Counsel further drew the attention of this Court to
the policy guidelines notified vide Notification No. 1868 dated
11.08.2011 (published in the Official Gazette dated 30.07.2011),
framed under the 1991 Act as amended by the Orissa Saw Mills
and Saw Pits (Control) Amendment Act, 2010. The said
guidelines, which derive statutory force from the enabling
provisions of the parent enactment, are prescriptive in character
and lay down a closed set of eligibility conditions for relocation
and rehabilitation of saw mills within identified industrial
estates. These include:
(a) continuous operation under valid licence;
(b) absence of offence record, except where condonation is
expressly accorded by the State Government;
(c) seniority-based listing by the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests, Odisha; and
(d) possession of requisite technological infrastructure.
(v) It was further contended that the Petitioner fails to meet even a
single parameter of eligibility. The existence of an uncondoned
offence record, coupled with the absence of a valid subsisting
licence and the location of the saw mill within a prohibited forest
radius, operates as a complete bar to consideration. The right to
rehabilitation, it was argued, is not a vested or enforceable right
but a policy discretion subject to statutory preconditions, and no
writ of mandamus can issue to compel the State to act contra
legem.
(vi) Under Rule 4 of the guidelines, it is incumbent upon eligible
units to furnish their willingness for rehabilitation within the
prescribed time. The Petitioner, not being part of the notified
eligible list, neither submitted any such willingness nor
expressed option within the stipulated period. Consequently, the
Petitioner lacks locus standi to maintain the present proceeding,
as no legal right, whether vested or contingent, accrues in his
favour.
(vii) The record further discloses that the original licence stood
issued to one Sri Hiralal Patel by the Divisional Forest Officer,
Puri Forest Division, on 12.07.1991, authorizing operation over
Plot No.1327, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar, valid until 12.07.1994.
Although an application for renewal was filed on 27.06.1994, no
renewal was ever granted, and the statutory presumption of
cessation under Section 5 of the 1991 Act thus stands attracted.
(viii) Reliance was placed on the authoritative pronouncement of
the Full Bench of this Court in O.J.C. No.1826 of 1994 (decided on
02.12.1994), which upheld the constitutional validity of Section
4(1) of the 1991 Act, enunciating that the legislative prohibition
against the operation or establishment of saw mills within ten
kilometres of any forest area is absolute and admits of no
administrative discretion. The same principle was reiterated in
O.J.C. No.11164 of 1996 (decided on 02.02.1996), wherein it was
further clarified that the restriction operates in rem and not
merely in personam.
(ix) In view of the cumulative statutory disqualifications, the
absence of condonation, and the lapse of licence, it was
contended that the Petitioner's plea for rehabilitation is devoid of
legal merit. The policy of rehabilitation being a matter of
governmental discretion and not a matter of right, judicial
interference is unwarranted unless the decision is shown to be
perverse, arbitrary, or actuated by mala fides -- none of which, it
was urged, is established herein. Hence, the writ petition is liable
to be dismissed in limine as misconceived and devoid of any
cogent cause of action.
IV. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials
placed on record.
(i) It is admitted that the Petitioner was granted a valid license in 1991
and operated for several years. The inclusion of the Petitioner's
unit in List-I indicates official recognition of compliance and
seniority.
(ii) The sole impediment cited by the Opposite Parties is the alleged
pendency of Offence Report No.2 (b) CC-3/1993. However, as
evidenced from the D.F.O.'s communication dated 05.02.2020, the
said record is not traceable in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M.,
Bhubaneswar. The principle lex non cogit ad impossibilia -- the law
does not compel the impossible -- squarely applies to the facts of
the present case. The Petitioner cannot be penalized for the non-
availability of judicial records which is beyond his control.
(iii) In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India1 the Supreme Court held
that administrative discretion must be exercised in a just, fair, and
reasonable manner consistent with Article 14. The present inaction
of the authorities, despite the Petitioner's eligibility and repeated
representations, is neither fair nor reasonable.
1 (1978) 1 SCC 248
(iv) The doctrine of legitimate expectation as elucidated in Navjyoti
Coop. Group Housing Society v. Union of India2 which may be
applied with vigor in the present case. The Petitioner, having been
recognized in List-I and having fulfilled the prescribed conditions,
was legitimately expecting consideration under the prevalent
policy. As submitted, the Petitioner's original site fell within the
prohibited ten-kilometer radius is misconceived. The 2011
guidelines themselves envisage relocation into industrial estates
precisely to regularize such saw mills. Thus, past location cannot
permanently disqualify an otherwise eligible applicant.
(v) The record further demonstrates that several similarly placed saw
mills, even those categorized under List-II, have been rehabilitated.
The selective exclusion of the Petitioner, without any cogent
justification, amounts to hostile discrimination and violates the
equal protection as envisaged under Article 14, which has been
duly in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu3 and State of M.P. v.
Nandlal Jaiswal4 by the Supreme Court of India.
(vi) Administrative power, though discretionary, must operate
within the bounds of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness. As held
in S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India5discretion when unguided by
reason degenerates into arbitrariness. The failure of the Opposite
Parties to decide the Petitioner's representation for over a decade is
nothing but a classic instance of such arbitrariness. Thus, the
2 (1992) 4 SCC 477
(1974) 4 SCC 3
AIR 1987 SC 251
AIR 1967 SC 1427
inaction of the Opposite Parties amounts to arbitrary exercise of
administrative power, infringing Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution.
6. CONCLUSION:
7. In light of the above discussion, this Court holds that the Petitioner's
saw mill, being reflected in List-I, satisfies the prima facie eligibility
under Notification No.13891 dated 30.07.2011;
since the alleged offence case of 1993, whose record is untraceable,
cannot form a valid ground to deny consideration.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed in part with the following
directions:
(i) The Opposite Party No.3 (Principal Chief Conservator of
Forests, Odisha) shall reconsider the Petitioner's case for
rehabilitation and grant of licence under Notification
No.13891 dated 30.07.2011, without being influenced by the
untraceable offence record referred to hereinabove
(ii) The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of
ONE month from the date of communication of this
judgment.
9. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 31st October, 2025/
