Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20599 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. M/S Vishwakarma Saw Mill, Byapur, P.S. Maner, District- Patna, A Proprietorship Frim Through Its Proprietor Sri Gopal Vishwakarma Son Of Late Ram Swaroop Mistri, Resident Of Village- Byapur, P.S. Maner, District- Patna 2. M/S Rastriya Chirai Udyog, Phulwarisharif, P.S. Phulwarisharif, District- Patna, A Proprietorship Firm Through Its Proprietor Sri Arbind Kumar Son Of Late Ayodhaya Prasad Gupta, Resident Of Phulwarisharif, P.S. Phulwarisharif, District- Patna 3. M/S/ Shahi Saw Mill, Taregna Gola Road, Masaurhia, P.S. Masaurhia, District- Patna, A Proprietorship Firm Through Its Proprietor Sri Jagdish Prasad Sharma Son Of Late Dhanraj Sharma, Resdent Of Taregna Gola Road, Masaurhia, P.S. Masaurhia, District- Patna 4. M/S Rajiv Timber Works, Dulhin Bazar, P.S. Dulhin Bazar, District- Patna, A Proprietorship Firm Through Its Proprietor Sri Jaigovind Sharma Son Of Late Indramal Sharma, Resident Of Dulhi Bazar, P.S. Dulhin Bazar, District- Patna 5. M/S Sharma Saw Mill, Paliganj, P.S. Paliganj, District- Patna, A Proprietorship Firm Through Its Proprietor Sri Ram Binay Mistri Son Of Sri Loknath Mistri, Resident Of Paliganj, P.S. Paliganj, District- Patna 6. M/S Vikash Saw Mill, Nirakhpur Paliganj, P.S. Paliganj, District- Patna, A Proprietorship Firm Through Its Proprietor Sri Vikash Singh Son Of Sri Girijanandan Singh, Resident Of Nirakhpur Paliganj, P.S. Paliganj, District- Patna 7. M/S Prakash Saw Mill, Lala Bhasara, Dulhin Bazar, P.S. Dulhin Bazar, District- Patna, A Proprietorship Firm Through Its Proprietor Sri Ravi Prakash Son Of Sri Lal Pyare Singh, Resident Of Lala Bhasara, Dulhin Bazar, P.S. Dulhin Bazar, District- Patna 8. M/S Kumar Industries, Etwarpur, Phulwarisharif, P.S. Phulwarisharif, District- Patna, A Proprietorship Firm Through Its Power Of Attorney Holder Sri Biteshwar Prasad Son Of Late Rama Shankar Prasad, Resident Of Village- Raghopur, P.S. Bihta, District- Patna 9. M/S Guru Govind Sah Saw Mill, Taregna Gola Road, P.S. Masaurhi, District- Patna, A Proprietorship Firm Through Its Proprietor Kulwindra Kaur Wife Of Late Jasbir Singh, Resident Of Taregna Gola Road, P.S. Masaurhi, District- Patna 10. M/S Hindustan Timber Works, Kankarbagh, P.S. Kankarbagh, District- Patna, A Proprietorship Firm Through Its Proprietor Geeta Sharma Wife Of Late Rajendra Prasad Sharma, Resident Of Kankarbagh, P.S. Kankarbagh, District- Patna 11. M/S Narayan Saw Mill, Kanhauli, Bihta, P.S. Bihta, District- Patna, A Proprietorship Firm Through Its Proprietor Sri Naresh Ram Son Of Late Narayan Ram, Resident Of Kanhauli, Bihta, P.S. Bihta, District- Patna 12. M/S Ekta Timber, Khagaul Road, Phulwarisharif, P.S. Phulwarisharif, District- Patna, A Proprietorship Firm Through Its Proprietor Sri Ratan Kumar Son Of Late Jangali Mistri, Resident Of Kanhauli, Bihta, P.S. Bihta, District- Patna Versus .... .... Petitioner/s 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.20599 of 2012 (7) dt.24-06-2013 2 / 5 1. The State Of Bihar, Through The Principal Secretary, Environment & Forest Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest, Bihar, 4th Floor, Technology Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 3. The Regional Chief Conservator Of Forest, Patna 4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Patna Forest Division, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vinay Mistry For the Respondent/s : Mr. Devendra Kr Sinha AAG-2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 7 24-06-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents. Petitioners herein are owners of saw mills in the district of Patna. They raise an objection with regard to the notice issued by the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), Patna as contained in Annexure-11 series whereby they have been called upon to submit their option(s) with regard to relocation of their saw mills. There is no dispute that petitioners have been adjudged as the owners of the saw mills who are in excess of the number fixed for grant of permission to run such saw mills in the district of Patna. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the seniority list (Annexure-10) has not been prepared in accordance with the direction issued by the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) dated 9.03.2012 (Annexure-7). However, it is admitted position that petitioners have not responded to the notice(s) 3
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.20599 of 2012 (7) dt.24-06-2013 3 / 5 issued to them. Learned counsel for the State submits that prior to the issuance of the second interim report by the CEC there was already a direction issued for preparation of the seniority list of the saw mills district-wise. The respondents already prepared a provisional list district-wise and after seeking objections have prepared the State-wise gradation list. In the meantime, the second recommendation of the CEC (Annexure-7) was made available in which further direction was issued as contained in para 8 (vii) and (viii) under the head „Observations and Recommendations‟. It is useful to quote the aforesaid recommendation(s) as contained in para 8 (vii) and (viii) which read thus:- “(vii) the district-wise Seniority List of saw mills also includes the names of the saw mills which have not so far been granted the saw mill licenses; (viii) before considering the grant of new saw mills licenses in a district (having lesser number of licensed saw mills than the number of saw mills decided to be permitted in the district) the existing licensed saw mills in other districts(having excess number of licensed saw mills over and above the number of saw mills that have been decided to be 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.20599 of 2012 (7) dt.24-06-2013 4 / 5 permitted in the district) should be provided the option for relocation. For this purpose, State-wise Seniority List of surplus licensed saw mills should be prepared and the option of relocation should be given and strictly in order of sonority.” It has been submitted that seniority list earlier prepared was not held to be unworthy of acceptance by the CEC. The aforesaid two defects were directed to be considered and removed. Accordingly the saw mill owners like the petitioners herein have been called upon by the notice(s) (Annexure-11 series) to submit their option(s) with regard to the relocation of their units. There is no dispute that prior to the list (Annexure-10) the State-respondents have prepared seniority list of the saw mills owners as per the first recommendation made by the CEC. Subsequently, the CEC made another recommendation (Annexure- 7) in which two issues/points with respect to saw mills owners was/were raised as noticed hereinabove. The saw mill owners whose names figure in the seniority list was/were now required to be heard on the point of relocation of units. Let it be recorded that petitioners have in course of hearing of the matter not disputed the fact that they have been adjudged as the surplus saw mill owners so far as the district of Patna is concerned. 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.20599 of 2012 (7) dt.24-06-2013 5 / 5 If that be the case, then the petitioner should respond to the notice(s) already issued to them, copies whereof have been enclosed as Annexure-11 series. The concerned respondent/authority shall consider their reply/option(s) to be furnished by the petitioners and dispose of the same in the light of the second recommendation made by the CEC (Annexure-7) as well as the relevant order passed by Hon‟ble the Supreme Court. Obviously, the maters will finally be placed before the CEC for grant of approval. If there be any defect or illegality in the decision or preparation of the list, the same can be brought to the notice of the CEC for rectification/correction, in accordance with law.
Decision
The application stands disposed of. (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) HR/-