Back
1997 Supreme(All) 1503
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.C.Mishra
RAM BIHARI
Versus
STATE OF U P
Decided On : 19 December 1997
Criminal Revision No, 1127 of 1997
The Supreme Court's interim orders prohibiting all ongoing activities within forest areas without prior approval of the Central Government applied to both licensed and unlicensed saw mills.
Headnote:
FOREST CONSERVATION ACT, 1980 - SAW MILLS - CLOSURE - UNLICENSED SAW MILLS - SEIZURE OF TIMBER - RELEASE - CONDITIONS - UTTAR PRADESH ESTABLISHMENT AND REGULATION OF SAW MILLS RULES, 1978 - UTTAR PRADESH TRANSIT OF TIMBER AND OTHER FOREST PRODUCE RULES, 1978 - APPLICABILITY - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The revisionist's saw mill was closed and timber and woods were seized by the authorities in compliance with the Supreme Court's directions to close unlicensed saw mills and prohibit non-forest activities within forest areas. The revisionist challenged the seizure and sought the release of the seized articles.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the seizure of the saw mill and timber was justified as the revisionist was operating an unlicensed saw mill in a forest area, which was prohibited by the Supreme Court's interim orders. The court also held that the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Establishment and Regulation of Saw Mills Rules, 1978 and the Uttar Pradesh Transit of Timber and other Forest Produce Rules, 1978 were not applicable to the revisionist's saw mill as it was being used for domestic carpentry and not for commercial purposes.
Issues: 1. Whether the seizure of the saw mill and timber was justified? 2. Whether the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Establishment and Regulation of Saw Mills Rules, 1978 and the Uttar Pradesh Transit of Timber and other Forest Produce Rules, 1978 were applicable to the revisionist's saw mill?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Supreme Court's interim orders prohibited all ongoing activities within forest areas without prior approval of the Central Government, including the running of saw mills of any kind. This prohibition applied to both licensed and unlicensed saw mills. 2. The provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Establishment and Regulation of Saw Mills Rules, 1978 and the Uttar Pradesh Transit of Timber and other Forest Produce Rules, 1978 were not applicable to the revisionist's saw mill as it was being used for domestic carpentry and not for commercial purposes.
Final Decision: The revision was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the Magistrate was directed to dispose of the application afresh in light of the court's observations.
This revision has been filed against seizure of saw machine, its part and woods stored at saw mill on 18- 3-1997 and also to set aside the order dated 26-4-1997 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, III, Allahabad rejecting the applicants prayer for release of the seized articles.
2. A copy of the seizure memo (annexure-4) shows that on 18th March, 1997 at 3. 20 p. m. the S. D. M. Phulpur, CO. Phulpur. D. F. O. and Range Officer raided the saw mill of the revisionist and in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court closed the saw mill, seized timbers and woods kept at the platform alongwith separable parts of saw machine.
3. The revisionist filed an application for release before Judicial Magistrate II, Allahabad. After hearing the learned Counsel for the revisionist and A. P. O. rejected the applicatin on 26-3-1997. Felt aggrieved the revisionist filed an applica tion under Section 482, Cr. P. C. , read with Section 397, Cr. P. C. . On 21-8- 1997 the Bench concerned held that since the order is revisable its inherent powers should not be invoked and therefore, directed the application to be treated as revision and permitted the applicant to make necessary amendments.
4. I have heard Sri D. S. Mishra, learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned A. G. A. The learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that no licence is required for running the saw mill in view of the Uttar Pradesh Establishment and Regulation of Saw Mills Rules, 1978 and the Uttar Pradesh Transit of
Timber and othei Forest Produce Rules, 1978, as these rules are not applicable to the ordinary operation of the domestic carpentry or to other similar work on small scale.
5. The learned Counsel contended that the revisonist has already been permitted to make wooden furniture and permanent registration certificate in this regard was issued by the Industries Department, which indicates that the saw mill was be ing used as domestic carpentry or for similar work on small scale and therefore no licence for operating the saw mill was required. He referred to the certificate is sued by the District Industries Centre dated 19-6-1971 which indicates that the applicant was permitted to make wooden furniture for establishing industry on small scale in the name and style of Rakesh and Ravi Wooden Furniture and House Windows in village Sahado, Phulpur, Allahabad.
6. The learned Counsel for the revi sonist also pointed out that earlier in the year 1994 the saw mill of the revisionist had been closed and his application for release was rejected by the Judicial Magis trate ill, Allahabad. The order was chal lenged by him in Criminal Revision No. 721 of 1994 which was decided by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alla habad directed the Magistrate to re consider the applicatin in accordance with the observations made by him. After re mand the learned Magistrate released the saw machine subject to his furnishing per sonal bond of Rs. 25,000;- with two sure ties each in the like amount.
7. So far as the Uttar Pradesh Estalbishment and Regulation of Saw Mills Rules, 1978 is concerned it is not applicable to ordinary operations of do mestic carpentry or to similar work on small scale in view of saving contained in Rule 12. Similarly, the Uttar Pradesh Transit of Timber and other Forest Pro duce Rules, 1978 regarding prohibited conversoin of the timber is not applicable to ordinary operation of domestic carpen try or to other similar work on small scale in view of explanation to Rule-26.
8. In view of the aforesaid provision referred to and relied on by the learned Counsel for the revisonist there is no doubt that the provisoins of Uttar Pradesh Estalbishment and Regulation of Saw Mills Rules, 1978 are not applicable to ordinary operation of domestic carpentry or to other similar work on small scale and consequently no licence is required till saw mill is used for that purpose.
9. A perusal of the recovery memo
