AFR

Court No. - 40

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25042 of 2011

Petitioner :- Smt. Manu Kumari

Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Sahai

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

1.

Today when the matter was taken up a request was made on behalf of

the Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner for adjourning the

matter. However, this Court finds that present petition is of the year 2011 and

the petitioner has not been able to obtain any interim order.

2.

Accordingly, present writ petition is being decided on the basis of

pleadings so available on record and after hearing Sri Sharad Srivastava,

learned Standing Counsel.

3.

This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking

following reliefs:-

"1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the

impugned order dated 4.4.2011 passed by the respondent no. 4 vide Patrank No.

4126/22-18 (Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition).

2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and

directing the respondent authorities not to interfere in the peaceful running and

functioning of the Saw Mill of the petitioner situated at Lalpur, Chitaula, Arniya,

Bulandhshahar."

4.

Perusal of relief as sought in the present writ petition reveals that the

petitioner herein is challenging the order / notice dated 4.4.2011 issued by the

fourth respondent, whereby the petitioner was required to shift its Saw Mill

within a period of seven days. Further relief has also been sought in the nature

of mandamus commanding the respondents herein not to interfere in the

peaceful running and functioning of the Saw Mill of the petitioner situated at

Lalpur, Chitaula, Arniya, Bulandhshahar.

5.

As per the pleading so set forth in the present writ petition, which

reveals that the petitioner was running the abovenoted Saw Mill with one

Madan Pal Singh s/o Hardev Singh since 1987. A license to the said effect was

2

issued in favour of Sri Madan Pal Singh bearing No. 205/2003 Arniya. It has

also been pleaded that an agreement was also entered between the petitioner

and Madan Pal Singh. However, as stated in paragraph 5 of the writ petition

on 16.11.2004 Sri Madan Pal Singh s/o Hardev Singh transferred the license

in favour of the petitioner. A copy of the license dated 16.11.2004 has been

appended as Annexure-2 at page 21 of the paperbook in which there is a

specific condition mentioned therein that the Saw Mill should not fall within

10 kms of existing forest.

6.

Sofar as the procedure and the manner according to which licenses as

well as ancillary and incidental issues are to be governed with respect of Saw

Mills it is clearly provided by the Rule by name and the nomenclature of Uttar

Pradesh Establishment and Regulation of Saw Mills Rules, 1978, which has

been enacted in exercise of the powers under Clause (a) of Section 51-A of the

Indian Forest Act, 1927.

7.

As a matter of fact, in the case of T.N Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs.

Union of India and others (1997) 5 SCC 760 the Hon'ble Apex Court in

proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in Writ Petition (C)

No. 202 of 1995 had issued certain directions vide order dated 8.5.1997,

however, sofar as the same pertains to state of Uttar Pradesh. The same is

being quoted as under:-

"1. After hearing the learned amicus curiae, the learned Attorney General and the

other learned counsel, we direct as under:

A. In the State of Uttar Pradesh the following is permitted-

1. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (PCCF) may, on a case-to-case basis,

consider grant of permission to an existing licensed saw mill to relocate itself,

provided that the relocated site is not within 10 kms of any existing forest.

2. To alleviate the unintended hardship which may be caused to the ordinary

populace in the hill areas who need forest produce for their survival, it is clarified as

under:-

(a) Nothing contained in the orders pas