Judgment · High Court · 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 13.08.2007CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANIKUMARW.P.No.24226 of 2007 & M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2007 Thiru S.RamasamyProprietor ofM/s.Lakshmi Saw MillPondy Main roadKoliyanur Postvillupuram Taluk & District... Petitioner Vs.

Forest Circle Officer Villupuram Forest Circle S.P.T.Lodge Hospital road, Villupuram2. General Manager District Industries Centre, Villupuram3. District Forest Officer Villupuram Forest Division Villupuram District... RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of Indiato issue a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents or their menor agents or any other person or persons acting on their behalf fromsealing the petitioner's Saw Mill, namely, M/s.Lakshmi Saw Millsituate at Pondy Main Road, Koliyanur Post, Villupuram District***For Petitioner ... Mr.A.ThamizharasanFor Respondents ...Mr.S.Rajasekar, AGP https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ORDER The petitioner has sought for a Mandamus, forbearing therespondents or their men from sealing his Saw Mill, namely,M/s.Lakshmi Saw Mill situated at Pondy Main Road, Koliyanur Post, Villupuram Taluk and District.

It is the case of the petitioner that he has gotprovisional registration to set up a Saw Mill from the Industriesand Commerce Department dated 22.7.2005 and thereafter on paymentof licence fee to the Panchayat Union, Koliyanur, he obtainedlicence to set up a Saw Mill for the year 2006-1007. The BlockDevelopment Officer, Panchayat Union, Koliyanur, Vellupuram Districtby his order dated 15.3.2007 granted permission to run his SawMill. When the petitioner was running the Saw Mill, third respondentin a prejudiced manner started interfering with the petitioner'sright to run the Saw Mill on the ground that no prior permission hasbeen obtained from the Forest department.

It is also the case of the petitioner that he has not beengiven sufficient time to approach the Central Empowered Committee toget their approval.

A supplementary affidavit dated 30.7.2007 was filed by thepetitioner in this Court to the effect that first respondent hasserved a notice dated 13.12.2006 to his son, which was not broughtto his notice. On this day, learned counsel for the petitionerproduced a xerox copy of the letter dated 14.12.2006 sent by the Member Secretary, Central Empowered Committee, informing him thatthe application received by the Central Empowered Committee hasbeen forwarded to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai for examination and recommendationfor grant of permit.

Placing reliance on the provisional registration dated22.7.2005 granted by the General Manager, District IndustriesCentre, Villupuram, office of the Industries and Commerce Departmentas well as the permission granted by the Block Development Officer, Koliyanur in his proceedings dated 15.3.2007, permitting thepetitioner to set up the Saw Mill and to put up a construction, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the aboveauthorities have already granted permission to set up a Saw Mill, itis not open to the forest Department officials to insist for priorapproval from them to start the Saw Mill. He further submitted thatsince the application sent to the Central Empowered Committee ispending consideration, the respondents 1 and 3 or their subordinates https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ have no right to interfere with the running of his Saw Mill orsealing the same and it is violative of principles of naturaljustice and also contrary to the orders of permission referred toearlier. He submitted that this Court may relax the condition andappropriate orders may be passed so as to enable the petitioner torun the Saw Mill.

The respondents in their counter affidavit have submittedthat pursuant to the directions of the Supreme court in W.P.(C)No.202 of 1995, Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.355, dated19.8.1998 to regulate the functioning of Saw Mills and the followingprocedure has been laid down: "i). All existing saw mills should be registered withthe respective District/Divisional Forest Officerconcerned, giving full details of ownership, capacity, source of timber etc.ii). Any fresh Saw mills to be set up should be required to take the prior approval of the District/Divisional Forest Officer before being setup. Iii). Saw Mills which are existing near any forest areashould be asked to relocate if the District/Divisional Forest Officer is of the view thatit is likely to harm directly or indirectly in thepreservation of the forest in the area.iv). The District/Divisional Forest Officers shouldconduct periodic and surprise checks to find outwhether any illicit timber is being purchased andused by the saw mills concerned and necessaryprosecution pursued in case any such activity isnoticed. "

The respondents have further submitted that the Apex Courtin I.A.No.566 of 2000 in W.P.(C) No.202 of 1995 by its order dated30.10.2002 ordered to close down all unlincenced saw mills, veneerand plywood industry and to stop giving permission to the aboveindustry and the operative portion of the order as extracted in thecounter affidavit is as follows: "No State or Union Territory shall permit anyunlincenced saw mills, veneer and plywood industrywithout prior permission of Central Empowered Committee. The Chief Secretary of each state will ensure strictcompliance of this direction. There shall also be norelaxation of rules with regard to the grant of licencewithout previous concurrent of Central EmpoweredCommittee. " https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8 It is further submitted that pursuant to the orders of the Supreme Court as well as the direction of the Government inG.O.Ms.No.355 dated 19.8.1997, the field staff of Villupuram Rangehave collected details of saw mills functioning in the jurisdictionof Villupuram range and all the Saw Mill Owners were intimatedthrough letter No.157/04 dated 9.6.2006 to register the saw milswith Forest Department. The Saw Mill owners were also supplied withcopy of G.O.Ms.No.355, Environment and Forests (FR III) Department, dated 19.8.1997 and letter dated 12.8.2004 of the Principal ChiefConservator of Forest, Chennai.

The respondents have further submitted that all the saw millowners were requested by letter dated 14.8.2006 to produce all thedocuments related to saw mills like license, blue print, NOC from Health Department and Fire Department, tax paid to local bodies etc.to verify the genuiness of saw mills as per the orders of the Supreme Court.

In so far as the Saw Mill owned by the petitioner, onverification of the documents, following violations were noticed: "1. This saw mill is functioning without any valid licence from any other department2.The owner himself has accepted in his correspondence with the Central Empowered Committee, constituted by the Hon'ble Supreme Courtof India, that his saw mill is functioning onlyfrom 20.11.2002, which is contrary to the Apex Court order dated 30.10.2002.3.There is no prior permission from Central Empowered Committee to run the saw mill as directed bythe Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 4. There is no prior approval from Forest Departmentas per G.O.Ms.No.355 dated 19.8.1997.

The respondents have further submitted in their counteraffidavit that with regard to opening of new saw mill, no otherDepartment has the authority to issue licence. As regards thecontention of the petitioner that he has not been served withnotice, seeking for prior approval from the Forest Department and Central Empowered Committee, respondents 1 and 3, in paragraph 9 ofthe affidavit, have stated that the petitioner had been frequentlyinformed. Letters dated 5.6.2006 and 9.6.2006 were sent throughordinary post, that a letter dated 17.8.2006 was acknowledged by thepetitioner's son dated 18.8.2006, and registered letters dated13.12.2006 and 7.7.2007 were acknowledged by the petitioner. It isfurther submitted that in all these communications, the petitionerwas specifically instructed to register the Saw Mill with the Forest https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Department and get the approval from the Central EmpoweredCommittee. Inspite of the communications, the petitioner has failedto take appropriate action and did not produce the relevantdocuments. Hence the respondents 1 and 3 have prayed for dismissalof the Writ Petition.

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the materialson record.

In compliance with the directions of the Supreme Courtorder dated 12.12.2006, the State Government have issued directionsin G.O.Ms.No.355, Environment and Forests (FR III) Department dated19.8.1997. As per the Government Order, all the existing Saw Millsshould be registered with the respective District/Divisional Forestofficers, giving full details of ownership, capacity, source oftimber etc. Further, any fresh saw mill to be established isrequired to take the prior approval of the District/ DivisionalForest Officer. The Supreme Court in its order dated 30.10.2002 inI.A.No.566 in W.P.(Civil) No.202 of 1995, directed closure of allsuch unlicensed saw mills, Veneer and Plywood industry and to stopgiving permission to above Industry and further made it clear thatno State Government or Union Territory will permit the opening ofsaw mills, Veneer and Plywood industry without prior permission ofthe Central Empowered Committee. The Chief Secretary of eachState has been directed to ensure strict compliance of the directionand there shall be no relaxation of rules with regard to the grantof licence without previous concurrence of the Central EmpoweredCommittee.

Pleadings disclose that though the petitioner has beenserved through ordinary post, in person, as well as throughregistered post, he has failed to take any action and register withthe Forest Department. It is also explicit from the averments madeby the petitioner that the Saw Mill has been started only in theyear 2005 and that provisional registration of the Industries and Commerce Department has been granted on 22.7.2005 and thereafter thepetitioner has obtained permission from the Block DevelopmentOfficer, Panchayat Union, Koliyanur on 15.3.2007, which is muchlater than the Government order and the directions of the SupremeCourt, which came to be passed on 30.12.2006 directing closure ofany unlicensed saw mill. As regards the violation, it is evidentfrom the counter affidavit that the petitioner's saw mill isfunctioning without any licence from any the competent department. As per the direction of the Supreme Court, no State Government or Union Territory will permit the opening of saw mills, Veneer and Plywood industry without prior permission of the Central EmpoweredCommittee and the Chief Secretary of each State has been directed toensure strict compliance of the direction and there shall be norelaxation of rules with regard to the grant of licence without https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ previous concurrence of the Central Empowered Committee. Theaverments of the petitioner and the documents enclosed in the typedset of papers clearly prove that the petitioner has started the SawMill in the year 2005 and failed to obtain prior permission from the Forest Department as well as the Central Empowered committee. Whenthe orders of the Supreme Court are enforced by the StateGovernment for closure of Saw Mill, the same cannot be said asarbitrary. In my considered view, the action of the respondents isnothing but strict implementation of the directions of the SupremeCourt. I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition. No mandamuscan be issued restraining the authorities from enforcing the law ofthe land as declared by the Supreme Court.

In the result, the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to approach the CentralEmpowered Committee for early disposal of his application andregister himself with the Forest Department for obtaining properlicence to run the Saw Mill.

The interim order already granted by this court is vacatedand the connected M.Ps. are also dismissed. AjrSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarTo1. Forest Circle Officer, Villupuram Forest Circle S.P.T.Lodge, Hospital road, Villupuram2. The General Manager, District Industries Centre, Villupuram3. The District Forest Officer, Villupuram Forest Division Villupuram District+ 1 cc to Mr. A. Thamizharasan, Advocate SR No.50415+ 1 cc to the Spl Govt Pleader High Court, Madras SR No. 50580KS(CO)SR/3.1.2008W.P.No.24226 of 2007