Administrative discretion must align with principles of fairness and legality; untraceable offences cannot bar rehabilitation eligibility for operational saw mills under applicable regulations.

Judgment :

Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. The Petitioner, in this Writ Petition, seeks a direction from this Court to the Opposite Parties to issue saw mill license in its favour for rehabilitation of its saw mill at the nearby Barunei notified designated Industrial Estate to run the saw mill within a stipulated time.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The Petitioner was carrying on the business of a saw mill under the proprietorship concern styled as M/s. Kalinga Saw Mill, pursuant to Saw Mill Licence No. 56/91, which had been duly granted in his favour by the competent Licensing Authority on 12.07.1991, in accordance with the statutory mandate and in due compliance with the regulatory requirements prescribed under the relevant enactments governing the control and operation of saw mills.

(ii) It is discernible from the official correspondence that the Opposite Party No.3 vide Letter No.14879 dated 01.10.2011 addressed to the Principal Secretary to Government, Forest and Environment Department, had prepared and transmitted a comprehensive seniority list of licensed saw mills operating in all districts of the State of Odisha, while strictly adherence to the policy guidelines framed and notified by the said Department vide Notification No.13891 dated 30.07.2011, promulgated under its statutory and regulatory competence to ensure uniformity, transparency, and administrative propriety in the regulation of saw mill operations.

(iii) As evident from the seniority list, the Petitioner’s saw mill, named M/s. Kalinga Saw Mill, figures at Serial No. 9 of List–1 pertaining to Khordha District, without any notation of offence or infraction. The said record further delineates that the Petitioner had lawfully operated the saw mill under a valid licence from 12.07.1991 to 08.07.1997, for a cumulative duration of 1,098 days. It also records that the Petitioner’s father, being the then proprietor, had continued the operation of the said unit under the protective umbrella of an interim stay order granted by this Hon’ble Court between 19.11.2001 and 18.05.2002, spanning 181 days.

(iv) The State Government, vide Notification No.13891 dated 30.07.2011, issued detailed guidelines regulating the establishment, relocation, and operation of saw mills within the State of Odisha. As per the said guidelines, the Industries Department was required to identify suitable industrial estates— restricted to a maximum of two per district—for accommodating such saw mills. The Department was also directed to indicate the specific sheds or areas available within the identified estates for the aforesaid purpose. Thesaid guidelines further stipulated that priority in relocation and rehabilitation shall be accorded to saw mills which had been functioning for a longer period under a valid licence and against which no offence had been recorded. Only such saw mills maintaining a clean compliance record were eligible for rehabilitation. In cases where offences had been booked, consideration for rehabilitation could arise only upon prior condonation of such offences by the Government, based on an assessment of their nature and gravity. The task of preparing the consolidated list of eligible saw mills was entrusted to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Odisha (Opposite Party No.3).

(v)The Opposite Party No.3, vide Letter No.14003 dated 28.06.2018, issued in response to the Petitioner’s representation dated 02.03.2017 pertaining to rehabilitation of the saw mill, directed the Petitioner to approach the Divisional Forest Officer concerned for initiation of appropriate action in