SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(Himachal Pradesh High Court)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, M.K. Mukherjee
STATE OF H.P. AND OTHERS, APPELLANTS
VERSUS
GANESH WOOD PRODUCTS AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS.
Civil Appeals Nos. 8184-93 of 1995
decided on September 11, 1995.
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 51-A - Industries (Development Regulation) Act, 1951 - Sale of forest produce - Environmental problems - Ingredient in pan and pan is derived from tree - Central portion tree is used for this purpose - These trees are found in considerable number in State of Himachal Pradesh - They are also found in other States but it appears that one after other various States have banned cutting of trees with result that those intending to manufacture have been flocking to Himachal Pradesh over last few years - Till year was being manufactured State of Himachal Pradesh Since manufacture of requires extremely cold conditions it is stated manufacture was being undertaken in only during winter season – In year however unit was established in State by Shankar Trading Company for manufacture can go on round year in unit - Unit consumes far larger quantities wood than all put together – Held, Matters before us have to be approached and decided keeping above principles in mind - Court should first ascertain what precisely each five respondents Wood Products Dev Industries Indian Wood Products and Industries has done on basis of and on faith approval granted by date communication decision Government - IPARA in case two last mentioned units - Expression communication in this behalf should be understood as explained in State of Punjab After ascertaining same Court shall have to decide whether it is case - separately in case of each respondents - where Government should or should not be allowed to go back on approval granted by IPARA - It is obvious that this decision has to be taken after giving an opportunity to both parties adduce material in support their respective stands - Inasmuch High Court has not approached examined case from above standpoint matter has go back - While deciding appropriate course it is evident that Court shall also have to keep in mind plea of Government that IPARA or its Sub-Committee was not competent to accord approval and that power only with Government as also plea respondents that in circumstances they believed and acted in good faith that IPARA is but another name for or a mouthpiece Government - It is equally evident that while deciding where interests justice and equity lie Court will also take into account and balance public interest and interest respondents aforesaid order accordingly
JUDGMENT
B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. - Leave granted. Heard counsel for the parties.
2. These appeals arise from a judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court disposing of eight writ petitions together.
3. Katha is a necessary ingredient in pan and pan masalas. Katha is derived from the khair tree. The central portion of the tree is used for this purpose. These trees are found in considerable number in the State of Himachal Pradesh. They are also found in other States but it appears that one after the other, various States have banned the cutting of khair trees, with the result that those intending to manufacture katha have been flocking to Himachal Pradesh over the last few years.
4. Till the year 1975, katha was being manufactured in the State of Himachal Pradesh only by bhattiwalas. Since the manufacture of katha requires extremely cold conditions, it is stated, the manufacture of katha was being undertaken in bhatties only during the winter season. In the year 1975, however, a mechanised unit was established in the State by Shankar Trading Company for the manufacture of katha. The manufacture of katha can go on round the year in a mechanised unit. The mechanised unit consumes far larger quantities of khair wood than all the bhatties put together.
5. Himachal Pradesh is an industrially backward State. Like other States, it too has been evolving schemes for encouraging industrialisation of the State. By a Notification dated 13-5-1974, the Governor of Himachal Pradesh established the Industrial Projects Approval and Review Authority (IPARA) comprising Chief Secretary to the Government, Secretaries to the Departments of Multipurpose Projects and Power, Public Works, Industries and Finance besides Chairman of the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, Chief Conservator of Forests, Chief Engineer, PWD and the Director of Industries. The terms of reference and the activities to be undertaken by the IPARA were specified as under :
"(i) To act as the focal point for dissemination of information regarding programmes of Government assistance and incentives to entrepreneurs.
(ii) To receive all applications for setting up of factories in medium and large-scale sector.
(iii) To process the applications for establishment of new industries and select projects for Government approval.
(iv) To arrange all necessary assistance required for the successful implementation of approved projects from various Government Departments and to act as the channel of correspondence and the coordinating agency between the entrepreneurs and various concerned Government Departments.
(v) To review the progress of approved projects.
(vi) To recommend necessary changes in the Government policy regarding Industrial Development in the light of experience gained.
(vii) Such other matters as the Government may refer or delegate to the Authority from time to time."
6. On 29-11-1990 IPARA was abolished by the Government. It appears to have been revived later. By Notification dated 3-9-1993 the President of India (Himachal Pradesh was then under the Presidents rule) reconstituted IPARA with a more expansive membership. The terms of reference and the activities to be undertaken by the IPARA, however, remained the same as were contained in the Notification dated 13-5-1977. It is stated that during the period IPARA was not in existence, the Director of Industries, Himachal Pradesh was looking after that work. Applications received from entrepreneurs proposing establishment of industrial units in Himachal Pradesh were being processed in the first instance by IPARA - and during the period when IPARA was not in existence, by the Director of Industries.
7. Several units applied to IPARA/Director of Industries during the years 1992 and 1993 proposing to establish mechanised units for manufacturing katha. In all, fifteen units applied but we are concerned only with eight such units in these appeals. We shall, therefore, state the particulars with respect to these eight units onl
relied on : Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab
considered : Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U. P.
Jit Ram Shiv Kumar v. State of Haryana
Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd.
Shri Bakul Oil Industries v. State of Gujarat
Pournami Oil Mills v. State of Kerala
Kasinka Trading v. Union of India
relied on : Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U. P.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.