The need to protect and safeguard the forests and environment as per Article 48-A and Article 51A(g) of the Constitution influenced the court's decision to uphold the licence cancellation and allow the petitioner to apply for renewal or a fresh licence after relocating the depot.

ORDER :

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing office order no.48 dated 27th July, 2022, as contained in memo no.2095 dated 27th July, 2022 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent no.4, whereby the petitioner’s Licence no.01 of 2022 for running depot relating to stock and sale of timber (Bota and Chiran), bamboo and other wooden raw materials has been cancelled. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent no.4 to provide an opportunity to the petitioner for shifting his depot relating to aforesaid wooden products beyond five kilometres from the nearest boundary of the notified forest area. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondent no.4 to grant fresh licence to him for the said purpose.

2. Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, learned A.C. to Sr. S.C.III, appearing on behalf of the respondents refers to a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Ram Pukar Sharma Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and other analogous cases, reported in 2019(2) JLJR 496, and submits that the issue with respect to optimum distance of saw mills as five kilometres from the nearest boundary of the notified forest area has been put at rest. Since the petitioner’s depot with respect to stock and sale of timber (Bota and Chiran), bamboo and other wooden raw materials is situated within five kilometres of the notified forest area, the impugned office order dated 27th July, 2022 cancelling the petitioner’s licence has rightly been passed.

3. On this, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to paragraph no.39 of the said judgment and submits that even after dismissal of the writ petitions, the petitioners of the said cases were given liberty to file respective applications before the concerned licensing authorities for consideration of their cases of renewal/grant of licenses after shifting their respective saw mills in terms with the decision of the Government of Jharkhand and the concerned authorities were directed to take appropriate decision within two months of filing of such applications.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Ram Pukar Sharma (Supra.), the relevant paragraphs of which read as under:-

“36. The interference of this court has been sought under its extraordinary writ jurisdiction against the decision of the State Government fixing the optimum distance of saw mills as 5 Kms. from the notified forest in pursuance of direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and on the basis of the finding of the expert committee. In my opinion, it would not be appropriate to exercise the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution in view of the fact that increase of population, urbanisation and industrialisation has led to mushrooming of saw mills and other wood based industries which resulted in rapid depletion of forest cover. Thus, the 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 the very decision of the state government itself fixing the distance of 05 kms. from the notified forest area.

37. In the case of Sachldanand Pandey vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (1987)2 SCC 295, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had the occasion to deal with the question of interference by Courts in matters having bearing on the environment. In para 4 of the said judgment it is held as under:--

"4. ………Whenever a problem of ecology is brought before the Court, the Court is bound to bear in mind A