Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/438/2022 on 8 March, 2022
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions and COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
Registrar's order with
Signatures
WPMS No.438 of 2022
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Advocate and Mr.
Prem Prakash Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. T.S. Phartiyal, Addl. C.S.C. for the State
of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Yogesh Pant, Advocate holding brief of
Mr. V.K. Kapruwan, Standing Counsel for Union of
India.
The petitioners who claim themselves to be a
company incorporated under the Companies Act,
contend that the nature of the Industrial activities
which are being performed and carried by them will
not fall to be within the Guidelines of 2016-2017
for the purposes of classifying the petitioners as to
be a "wood base Industry", as they are only
manufacturing pulp and hence they would be
outside the ambit of Clause 4-K of the Guidelines
of 2016.
This Policy/Guidelines of 2016 were further
amended in the year 2017, under the provisions of
U.P. Establishment and Regulation of Saw Mills
1978 Rules. Be that as it may.
On a certain set of allegations pertaining to
an allegation relating to a wrongful installation of a
chipper machine the Divisional Forest Officer, had
issued a notice on 12.02.2022, whereby the
petitioners were called upon to submit their reply
within seven days along with all the relevant
documents, as well as the provisions of the
Guidelines of 2016 and the amended guidelines of
2017 and the requisite sanction which has been
accorded to them.
Petitioners contend that in response to the
notice of 12.02.2020, the petitioners have already
submitted their a reply before the Divisional Forest
Officer on 18.02.2022. But despite of having
received the reply instead of taking any decision on
the same after considering the material placed along
with it, which has been produced by the petitioners
before the Divisional Forest Officer, in fact the
Divisional Forest Officer had rather proceeded to
pass an order on 03.03.2022, whereby he has
referred a correspondence to the Senior
Superintendent of Police, District Udham Singh
Nagar, for providing a police assistance on the
pretext that the unit of the petitioners' was found to
be indulged in an illegal operation of the chipper
machine on the basis of treating it to be a wood
based industry.
Tentatively this Court is of the view, that
what implications would the order passed in the
Writ Petition (PIL) No.207 of 2018, would have
over an issue, which is now the subject matter of
the notice dated 12.02.2022 and as to whether the
petitioners' unit, at all is a 'wood based Industry' or
not as per the covenants or Guidelines of 2016 and
amended Guidelines of 2017, are yet the aspects
which are to be considered and decided by the
Divisional Forest Officer on the basis of the reply
given by the petitioners on 18.02.2022.
This Court is of the view that before any
coercive or punitive action is taken against the
petitioners, as it has been contemplated to be taken
by the correspondence of 03.03.2022, could not
have been proceeded with until and unless the
Divisional Forest Officer, has rationally applied his
mind to the reply submitted by the petitioners to the
notice dated 12.02.2002, which was solicited by his
office only and in the absence of there being any
prior decision on the same, settling the issue, as to
whether at all the petitioners is engaged in violation
of any of the provisions or the Guidelines of 2016
and 2017 or not! whether the petitioners' unit is at
all a wood based Industry or not! Until and unless
these questions are determined by the Divisional
Forest Officer, no corrective action could have been
expected to be taken as contemplated to be taken by
the correspondence of 03.03.2022.
In that eventuality, while reserving the rights
of the petitioners to put a challenge to the other
reliefs which has been claimed by the petitioner in
the present writ petition pertaining to the
declaration qua the policies which has been referred
to in relief clause B,C,D, E and F, the writ petition
is being disposed of with a direction to the
respondent no.2 to consider and decide the reply
dated 18.02.2022, as submitted by the petitioners to
the notice of 12.02.2022, in the light of the
provisions contained under a policy of 2016, as it
stood amended in 2017 and at the time of taking of
the decision to the reply thus submitted by the
petitioners on 18.02.2022, the respondent no.2
would also ensure to determine the question, as to
whether the petitioners at all fall to be a wood based
Industry or not and in the process of decision
making, the petitioners would be heard by
respondent no.2 and the decision would be taken
thereof by him and till the decision is taken by
respondent no.2, on the reply submitted by the
petitioners, the communication of 03.03.2022 made
by respondent no.2 to the Senior Superintendent of
Police, District Udham Singh Nagar, would be kept
in abeyance till the decision of respondent no.2.
The decision would be taken by respondent
no.2, within a period of one month from the date of
production of certified copy of this judgment.
Subject to the aforesaid observations, the writ
petitioner stands disposed of
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
08.03.2022
Arti
