Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2914

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Vivek Singh Thakur, Sushil Kukreja, JJ
Ashok Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director General of Forest-cum-Appellate Authority – Respondent
CWP No.10525 of 2025 | CWP No.14736 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shrawan Dogra, Sunny Modgil, Manik Sethi, Shabnam, Annanya Verma, R.L. Sood, Yudhbir Singh Thakur, Ayush Chauhan
For the Respondents: Bharat Bhushan, Anup Rattan, Ramakant Sharma, Ajay Sharma, Atharv Sharma

Regulatory bodies tasked with managing forest resources have the authority to facilitate technological upgrades in wood-based industries to ensure sustainable resource consumption, provided such policy decisions align with statutory frameworks, are based on scientific assessment, and do not violate the principle of equal opportunity.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) - Himachal Pradesh (Sale of Timber) Act, 1968 - Section 3 - Wood-Based Industries (Establishment and Regulation) Guidelines, 2016 - Regulation of industrial activities - Petitioners challenged notifications and regulatory decisions regarding the conversion of traditional manufacturing units into mechanized units, alleging arbitrariness and lack of jurisdiction - Court held that regulating industrial activities to ensure sustainable resource management, especially concerning forest products, falls within the domain of statutory authorities - Restrictions on raw material consumption are reasonable to prevent ecological degradation and ensure equitable distribution among industrial participants - No violation of fundamental rights found as regulations apply to all similarly situated units in public interest. (Paras 35, 36, 42 and 48)

(B) Administrative Law - Policy decisions - Judicial review - Interference in policy matters should be limited to instances where decisions are arbitrary, malafide, or contrary to statutory intent - Courts must exercise restraint and not substitute their wisdom for that of the executive in economic and developmental policies. (Paras 30, 31 and 32)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought the quashing of notifications and regulatory decisions that permitted the conversion of traditional wood-processing units into mechanized units using high-pressure boilers. They alleged that the authorities exceeded their jurisdiction, that the decision was taken in an arbitrary manner, and that the new regulations violated their fundamental rights by restricting trade and creating unfair competition in the industry.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the regulatory body acted within its delegated powers to assess timber availability and issue permissions for technological upgrades. The move toward mechanization was determined to be more resource-efficient and environmentally sustainable. The court rejected the argument that the decision to permit conversion was an uncontrolled legislative act, noting it was a regulatory recommendation followed by governmental deliberation.

Issues: The main issues were whether the regulatory committee exceeded its jurisdiction by allowing mechanized conversions, whether the impugned notifications were arbitrary or violated fundamental rights, and whether the procedural requirements for amending regulatory conditions were satisfied.

Ratio Decidendi: The regulatory body has the mandate to promote sustainable industrial practices and technological upgrades to minimize waste. Standardizing industrial units through technological shifts is a policy choice aimed at balancing development with environmental conservation, provided it does not lead to an monopoly and remains subject to statutory guidelines.

Result: Petitions dismissed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

2026:HHC:19496

CWP No.10525 of 2025

a/w CWP No.14736 of 2025

Reserved on: 10.03.2026

Date of decision: 25.05.2026

CWP No.10525 of 2025

Ashok Kumar. ...Petitioner.

Versus

Deputy Director General of

Forest-cum-Appellate Authority & Ors. …Respondents.

CWP No.14736 of 2025

Ashok Kumar Puri. ...Petitioner.

Versus

Deputy DCirector General of

Forest-cum-Appellate Authority & Ors. …Respondents.

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

CWP No.10525 of 2025

For the petitioner : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Senior Advocate

with Mr. Sunny Modgil (through VC), Mr. Manik Sethi, Ms. Shabnam and Ms.

Annanya Verma, Advocates.

For the respondents : Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Senior Panel Counsel, for respondents No.1, 3 and 4.

: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Additional

Advocate General, for respondents No.2, 5 and 6.

: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate, for

respondents No.7 to 33.

CWP No.14736 of 2025

For the petitioner : Mr. R.L. Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr.

Yudhbir Singh Thakur and Mr. Ayush Chauhan, Advocates.

For the respondents : Mr. Bhaorat Bhushan, Senior Panel Counsel, for respondents No.1, 3 and 4.

: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.2,

5 and 6.

: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate, for

respondent No.7.

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes

JUDGMENT

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge

1. These petitions, involving identical questions of fact and law for adjudication and seeking almost identical reliefs in both petitions, are being decided by this common judgment.

2. In CWP No.10525 of 2025, initially prayers ‘A’ and ‘B’ were made. However, during the pendency of the petition, vide order dated 17.09.2025 passed in CMP No.14900 of 2025, amendment was allowed and prayer ‘B.1’ was also added. Accordingly, the substantive reliefs prayed for in this petition are as under:–

“A. Issue an appropriate writ to quash and set-aside the notification dated 29.04.2008 (Annexure P-2) as being bad in the eyes of law to the extent it put restrictions on Katha Bhatti using IBR Boiler for the reason that the same is discriminatory and against Article 14 & 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

B. Issue an appropriate writ to set-aside the decision of the 15th meeting of the SLC dated 04.07.2024 related to Agenda No.3 (Annexure P-9), and also the appeal order dated 30.04.2025 (Annexure P-11) taken by the Appellate Authority (Respondent No. 1), as being arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

B.1. Issue an appropriate writ or direction to quash and set-aside all the subsequent and consequential action of the Respondent State, as a consequence of the decision of the SLC dated 04.07.2024 related to Agenda 3 (Annexure P-9) & Appeal Order dated 30.04.2025 (Annexure P-11) including the consequential conversion order by the Respondent No. 6 (Annexed as Annexure R-6/16) and also the notification dated 15.03.2025 issued by the Respondent State (Annexed as Annexure R-6/17).”

3. In CWP No.14736 of 2025, the substantive relief prayed for in the petition is as under:-

“A. Issue an appropriate writ or direction to quash and set-aside the decision of the SLC dated 04.07.2024 related to Agenda 3 (Annexure P-9) & Appeal Order dated 30.04.2025 (Annexure P-15) and all the subsequent and consequential action of the Respondent State, as a consequence of the said decision including the consequential conversion order by the Respondent No. 6 and also the notification dated 15.03.2025 issued by the Respondent State (Annexed as Annexure P-14).”

4. Replies on behalf of respondent-State, i.e. respondents No.2, 5 and 6, as well as respondent No.7, have been filed. Respondents No.8 to 33 in CWP No.10525 of 2025 have adopted the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.7. No reply has been filed o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2914

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLAVivek Singh Thakur, Sushil Kukreja, JJAshok Kumar – AppellantVersusDeputy Director General of Forest-cum-Appellate Authority – RespondentCWP No.10525 of 2025 | CWP No.14736 of 2025

Cases Referred (7)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Vivek Singh Thakur, Sushil Kukreja, JJ
Ashok Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director General of Forest-cum-Appellate Authority – Respondent
CWP No.10525 of 2025 | CWP No.14736 of 2025