2018 Supreme(Jhk) 1731

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
Ram Pukar Sharma and Ors - Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Ors - Respondent
W.P. (C) No.4808, 4529, 4717, 4719, 4722, 4991, 5054, 5170, 5171, 5172, 5173, 5174, 5175, 5176, 5177, 5181, 5182, 5183, 5184, 5185, 5186, 5240, 5275, 5276, 5282, 5283, 5284, 5285, 5286, 5288, 5289, 5290, 5291, 5292, 5293, 5297, 5299, 5302, 5303, 5304, 5305, 5307, 5341, 5342, 5348, 5355, 5384, 5508, 5529, 5530, 5565, 5567, 5718, 5725, 5756, 5765, 5813, 6145, 6148, 6226, 6355, 6356, 6540, 6769, 6827 of 2016 & 141, 241, 218, 1355, 1714, 2518, 996, 3184, 5791 of 2017
Decided On : 08-03-2018

Headnote:

Bihar/Jharkhand Saw Mills Act, 1990 - Section 6 – Constitution of India - Article 226 – Jurisdiction - Suspension/cancellation of licences – However Divisional Forest Officer letter directed the petitioner to shift his saw mill beyond from notified forest area in view of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of T.N Vs. Union of India, reported in – Thereafter petitioner personally met the Divisional Forest Officer (respondent no. 4) requesting him not to act in pursuance with the letter no.1955 requesting that the order of Supreme Court rendered in case of T.N is not applicable for the petitioner as the said saw mill has been established prior to the judgment of upreme Court and he has not violated the terms and conditions of licence. However the said request was not taken into consideration by the respondent no.4. Hence the present writ petition – Held, Whenever a problem of ecology is brought before the Court, the Court is bound to bear in mind Article 48-A of the Constitution, Directive Principle which enjoins that "The State shall to protect and Improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country", and Article 51A(g) which proclaims it to be the fundamental duty of every citizen of India "to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures." When the Court is called upon to give effect to the Directive Principle and the fundamental duty, the Court is not to shrug its shoulders and say that priorities are a matter of policy and so it is a matter for the policy-making authority - Least that the Court may do is to examine whether appropriate considerations are borne in mind and irrelevancies excluded. In appropriate cases, the Court may go further, but how much further must depend on the circumstances of the case. The Court may always give necessary directions. However, the Court will not attempt to nicely balance relevant considerations. When the question involves the nice balancing of relevant considerations, the Court may feel Justified in resigning itself to acceptance of the decision of the concerned authority - As already observed hereinabove, the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 12-12-96 and subsequent orders referred to above are intended to protect and safeguard the forests and environment and those directions can neither be fully implemented nor the forests and environment can effectively be safeguarded without regulating the business affairs of saw mills and other timber-related industries i.e., plywood and veneer mills etc. As the impugned notices were issued to the petitioners in the light of the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, no interference in this regard is warranted so as to permit unregulated and unchecked running of saw mills and other wood based industries - In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the discussions made herein above, all these writ petitions are hereby dismissed. However, the petitioners, after shifting the saw mills in terms with the decision of the Government of Jharkhand, are at liberty to file respective applications before the concerned licensing authorities for consideration of their cases of renewal/grant of licenses which shall be considered by said authorities in accordance with law and appropriate decision shall be taken within a period of 2 (two) months from date of receipt of respective applications from the petitioners on shifting of their saw mills beyond the distance of 05 kms. from the nearest boundary of the notified forest – Thus same has resulted in serious ecological imbalance which is an alarming situation and it was required to be checked at the earliest. No material has been brought on record by the petitioners to show that the decision of the State Government is illegal or incorrect so as to warrant any interference in writ jurisdiction. The petitioners have also not contended that the respondent authorities should have fixed any lesser distance than 05 kms. from the notified forest area for location of wood based industries for any justified reason, rather the petitioners have put challenge to very decision of the state government itself fixing the distance notified forest area – Appeal dismissed