Back
2004 Supreme(Pat) 1189
PATNA HIGH COURT
Aftab Alam, J.
M/s National Ply Product
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11428 of 2004 ;
Decided On : DECEMBER 01, 2004
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the State Government to act reasonably and in compliance with statutory provisions and court directives when issuing closure notices to plywood manufacturing units.
Headnote:
Plywood Manufacturing Units - Forest Protection - Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Act, 1990, Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - The judgment discusses the impugned notices issued to plywood manufacturing units in Bihar, the legal provisions under the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Act, 1990, and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. It highlights the interpretation of the definition of 'saw mill' and the implications of the Supreme Court's order in T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad on the closure of unlicensed units.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, plywood manufacturing units in Bihar, challenged the notices issued to shut down their operations. The notices were based on an amendment to the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Act, 1990, and a directive from the Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned notices were invalid and directed the concerned authorities to dispose of the applications for licences made by the petitioners within six weeks. It also directed the State Government to consider and decide on the report of the Third Expert Committee within two months.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the impugned notices, the interpretation of the statutory provisions, and the compliance with the Supreme Court's directive.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners should be allowed to operate until their licence applications are disposed of and directed the State Government to consider the report of the Third Expert Committee within a specified timeframe.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with the above observations and directions.
1. The eight petitioners before this court are plywood manufacturing units, The petitioner units are represented either by their respective Directors or by one of the partners of the firm that owns the unit. Each of the petitioner units is said to have been set-up prior to 12.12.1996; on that date, in an order passed in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad, the Supreme Court had issued a number of important directions aimed to protect the countrys forests.
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by and seek to challenge the notices, dated 12.8.2004 (Anenxure 12 series) by which the units are asked to shut down, failing which necessary steps would be taken against them. In the notices to the petitioners (that are quite identical) reference is made to a letter, dated 10.7.2003 written to the Principai Chief Conservator of Forest by the Director, Social Forestry, Govt. of Bihar, in para 5 of which it was stated that plywood and veneer units that were operating without regular licence should be closed down immediately and penal measures should be taken against those units. It is further stated that following that letter notices were issued on 29.8.2003 asking the respective units to close down and now the (impugned) notices were being issued again asking the units to shut down immediately.
3. To the petitioners the impugned notices appear to be a piece of highly capricious and whimsical action on the part of the State Government. It is pointed out that by an amendment made in section 2(g) of the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Act, 1990 on 22.4.2002 veneer and plywood manufacturing units were also brought within the definition of saw mill. Following the amendment, the Secretary, department of Forests and Environment, Govt. of Bihar issued a notice in the Hindi daily Dainik Jaagran on 26.7.2002. By that notice all veneer mills and plywood manufacturing units, set up after 12.12.1996 were directed to be shut down with immediate effect. But in so far as the units set-up prior to 12.12.1996 are concerned, their operators were asked to make application for licence for operating the unit before the concerned Divisional Forest Officer, in Form B of the Bihar Saw Mill (Regulation) Rules, 1993, by 31.7.2002. It is stated on behalf of the petitioners that all of them submitted applications for grant of licences in proper forms, duly complying with the requirements for making such application. Their applications were pending before the concerned authority and in the meanwhile the impugned fiat was issued asking the units to be shut-down in the most arbitrary manner.
4. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that since their applications for licence, made within the time allowed by the notice issued by the State Government, remained pending for consideration, it would be deemed that they were granted licences under the Act, as laid down in the proviso to section 5(2) of the Act. Hence, the petitioners units could not be said to be operating without licences and directed to shut down for that reason.
5. Before proceeding further it may be noted that though there are only eight petitioners before the court, in course of hearing of the case it came to light that every plywood manufacturing unit in the State was given a similar notice to close down immediately.
6. On behalf of the State it is admitted that following the amendment in section 2(g) of the Saw Mills (Reg.) Act a public notice was issued on 26.7.2002 asking those plywood manufacturing units that/were established before 12.12.1996 to apply for licences by 31.7.2002. It is also admitted that the petitioners (and some other units) had submitted their respective applications by the date fixed in the notice. But the blanket prohibition against all plywood manufacturing units in the State is sought to be justified on the basis of an order by the Supreme Court. Mr. R.K. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the State stated that it was not the intent of the State Govt. to shut down al
