Ashok Kumar v. Deputy Director General of Forest-cum-Appellate Authority

certain writ petitions were preferred in this High Court, both against granting permission as well as denial of permission to establish mechanized Katha units, including CWP Nos. 1445 of 1993, 1475 of 1993, 1489 of 1993, 1576 of 1993, 1590 of 1993, 1679 of 1993, 145 of 1994 and 611 of 1994. These writ petitions were decided by a Division Bench by a common judgment dated 30.12.1994, whereby petitions challenging grant of permissions were dismissed, whereas the orders denying permission were set aside.

14. The aforesaid judgment dated 30.12.1994 was assailed before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.8184-93 of 1995. The Apex -10- Court, vide judgment dated 08.05.1995 in State of H.P. and others vs. Ganesh Wood Products and others, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 363, set aside the judgment of the High Court and remitted the matters to the High Court for fresh disposal of the writ petitions in light of judgment rendered by the Apex Court and the law applicable thereto.

15. In the aforesaid judgment, following directions were also passed by the Apex Court:- “63. The Government of Himachal Pradesh shall make a survey and assess the approximate availability of khair wood in the year 1996 and the ensuing years. This shall be done through an expert body to be appointed by the government. The government shall be entitled to rely upon the expert committee's report and its own assessment arrived on the basis of such report before the High Court for its consideration as provided in this judgment.

64. No new industry/unit for manufacture of katha shall be approved by the government pending a final decision by the government on the question of availability of raw material in the years to come.”

16. Out of the aforesaid petitions, CWP No.1445 of 1993 was re-registered as CWP No.1301 of 2006, titled Yogendra Chandra vs. State of H.P. & others. Yogendra Chandra, who was the petitioner in the earlier CWP No.1445 of 1993, filed CWP No.1301 of 2006 espousing the cause of environmental degradation in the State of Himachal Pradesh on account of manufacture of Katha, alleging that, after passing of the judgment dated 08.05.1995 -11- in the remanded matters, the State Government had acted in defiance of the mandate of the Apex Court by granting permission to certain units for manufacturing Katha. The said writ petition was decided vide judgment dated 07.04.2011.

17. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed with observation that question of grant of permission of use of boilers in place of traditional Bhatties was never an issue before the Apex Court and traditional Bhatties were already functioning, and therefore, there had been no technical change in manufacturing process from traditional Handies to Boilers. However, in public interest, certain directions were issued, relevant whereof are as under:– “52. We are of the view that in public interest, certain directions are also required to be issued. Though the Committee has proposed several conditions, it is not clear from any affidavit as to whether any Committee has gone into the impact of Khair tree plantation and availability of Khair wood after the functioning of the units for the last around four years. It is also not clear from the affidavits as to whether there have been periodic inspections in the units and as to whether they stick to the permit conditions as required by the technical order and other guidelines. Still further, as is clear from the report of the Committee itself, no scientific survey has been conducted as to the availability of Khair wood on the basis of the Khair tree plantation. The assessment, as above, has not been made only on the basis of felling. That is and that cannot be a scientific basis. Therefore, there will be a direction to the Committee constituted by the State as per the notification dated 15.2.2007 for the preparation of draft guidelines for regulating the working of Katha Bhatties in the State of H.P., to conduct scientific survey as to the availability of Khair wood in the State. This survey shall be completed within a period of six months. On the basis of the survey, if required, there shall be review of the -12- licences already granted. Needless to say, in such an event, the affected parties shall be issued notice. There will also be a direction to the Committee to take steps to inspect all the licenced units and see whether they are functioning within the permitted conditions and if not, stringent action shall be taken in the cases of such units which have violated the conditions, be it even the cancellation of licences. Till the scientific survey, as above, is conducted, no new licence shall be granted to any Katha manufacturing unit either for starting afresh or for conversion of Handies to boiler system.”

18. In view of the aforesaid restraint order, no new licence was granted to any Katha manufacturing unit either for establishment afresh or for conversion of units to IBR boiler system. However, as no scientific survey was conducted within the period of six months granted by the Court, the existing position continued, whereby 40 traditional Bhatties, 39 semi-mechanized units and 3 mechanized units remained operational for manufacture of Katha in the State of Himachal Pradesh.

19. On 05.10.2015, the Apex Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India, reported in (2016) 13 SCC 612 (2), in matters relating to wood-based industries (‘WBIs’), passed the following order:- “127. On our request, Shri Harish Salve, the learned Amicus Curiae has given us a brief note on the matters pending before the Green Bench in different categories. He has also made certain suggestions for early disposal of those matters. He has exchanged the aforesaid note with Shri Ranjit Kumar, the learned Solicitor General of India, who represents the Union of India, Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel, who appears for some of the parties. -13-

128. The learned Amicus Curiae has classified the matters pending before the Green Bench under different heads such as: (i) matters relating to wood-based industries, (/i) matters relating to national parks/wildlife sanctuaries, (iii) matters relating to exemptions from the payment of the NPV, etc. etc.

129. We intend to take up the first category viz. matters relating to wood-based industries. Category I: Matters relating to wood-based industries

130. We have heard Shri Harish Salve, learned Amicus Curiae, Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General of India, Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel and other learned Senior Counsel/counsel. Accordingly, we pass the following orders:

130.1. The State Level Committees for Wood-based Industries ("SLCs") are, subject to the compliance with the prescribed guidelines and procedure, authorised to take decisions regarding the grant of licence/permission to the wood-based industries.

130.2. In each State/UT for which SLC has so far not been constituted, SLC under the chairmanship of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests with a representative of the Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) and an officer of the State Forest Department/Industries Department not below the rank of the Chief Conservator of Forests/equivalent rank will immediately be constituted.

130.3. MoEF is authorised to issue appropriate guidelines in conformation with the orders and directions issued by this Court and also the existing guidelines to SLCs relating to assessment of timber availability for wood-based industries and grant of licence/permission to the wood-based industries including addition of new machineries and also utilisation of amounts recovered from the wood-based industries and connected matters.

130.4. Any person aggrieved by the decision taken by SLC may file an appeal before MoEFCC seeking appropriate relief within 60 days' time. If, for any reason, any person is aggrieved by the orders so the appeal, he may prefer an appropriate passed petition/application/appeal before the appropriate forum/court for grant of appropriate relief(s).

131. We also permit MoEFCC to condone the delay, if any, in filing an appeal, if sufficient cause is made out by the applicant(s)/appellant (s).

132. The amounts lying with the respective State Forest Departments (recovered from wood-based industries) will be utilised for the purpose of afforestation only. -14-

133. The respective State Forest Departments will intimate the amount(s) spent by them for afforestation purpose to MoEFCC at the earliest.

134. With the aforesaid observations and directions, we dispose of the interlocutory applications/matters specified in Annexure I to the note supplied by Shri Harish Salve, learned Amicus Curiae.”

20. In compliance with the aforesaid directions, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (Survey and Utilization Division) issued the Wood-Based Industries (Establishment and Regulation) Guidelines, 2016, vide Resolution dated 11.11.2016, which was amended vide Resolution No.11.09.2017. The relevant portion of the Resolution dated 11.11.2016 reads as under:- “1. Short Title and commencement. (i) These guidelines shall be called the Wood-Based Industries (Establishment and Regulation) Guidelines, 2016.

2. Definition. (i) In these guidelines, unless the context otherwise requires – (a) (b) (c) 'License' means a license granted under these guidelines. Amended as :- 'License' means a license granted under the rules notified by a State/UT in pursuance of these guidelines. (h) 'State Level Committee' means a Committee Constituted by the State Government under Para 3 (2) of these guidelines. Amended as :- 'State Level Committee' means a committee constituted by the State Government under Para 3 (2) of these guidelines. -15- (k) 'Wood Based Industry' means any industry which processes wood as its raw material (Sawmills/veneer/plywood/pulp or any other form such as sandal, katha wood etc.). It includes a mill but does not include a furniture unit. Amended as :- 'Wood Based industry' means any industry which processes wood as its raw material (Saw mills/veneer/plywood or any other form such as sandal, katha wood etc.).”

21. In the aforesaid Resolution, Clause 4 pertaining to powers and functions of the State Level Committee (‘SLC’), was amended as under:- “4. Powers and functions of the State Level Committee. The State Level Committee shall:- (i) Assess the availability of timber for wood based industrial units in the State/UT every five years. (ii) Assess quantity of different raw material requirement for wood based industrial units which may be sustainably harvested from trees outside forest areas in the State/UT. (iii) Assess annual requirement of timber and other forest produce in the domestic markets in the State. (iv) Maintain a database of timber and other raw materials utilized by each wood based industrial unit permitted to establish and operate in the State/UT during each financial year. (v) Approve appropriate locations for setting up of wood based industrial units. (vi) Approve the name of wood based industrial units which may be considered for grant of fresh license or enhancement of the existing licensed capacity in case the committee is satisfied that timber is available legally for the said new Wood Based Industries (such as Trees outside forest, Forests etc.). (vii) The State Level Committee will ensure that the amount lying with the respective State Forest Departments (recovered from Wood Based Industries) will be utilized for the purpose of afforestation only. (viii) Examine and make appropriate recommendations on any other matter referred by the State Government or the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. -16- Amended as:-

3. The entries under Para- 4 of these guidelines are substituted with the following:- The State Level Committee (SLC) shall:-- i. ii. iii. iv. assess the availability of timber in the state by way of appropriate study on demand and supply as and when it decides. SLC shall devise suitable mechanism for sustainable use of timber in a way that does not affect the forests of the area adversely. approve the name of wood based industries which may be considered for grant of fresh license or enhancement of the existing licensed capacity in case the SLC is satisfied that timber is available legally for the said new Wood Based Industries (such as Trees outside forest. Forests etc.). ensure that the amount lying with the respective Stute Forest Departments (recovered from Wood Based Industries) is utilized for the purpose of afforestation only. examine and make appropriate recommendations or any other matter referred by the State Government to the Ministry of Environment. Forest and Climate Change.”

22. In the aforesaid Resolution, Clause 8 pertaining to grant, renewal and revocation of a license to a wood-based industry, was amended as under:- “8. Grant, renewal and revocation of a license to a wood based industry: (i) No license to a wood based industrial unit shall be granted or renewed without obtaining prior approval of the State Level Committee. (ii) No wood based industrial unit shall be established/ operate in a State except under and in accordance with the license granted by an officer authorized by the State Government in this regard (Preferably DCF/DFO or equivalent). (iii) The State Level Committee may maintain a separate list of wood based industries working solely on the timber imported from international market. The license to such industries shall specifically contain a condition to the effect that such units shall not be allowed to use timber produced in country. If in future, the said units want to -17- use timber produced in the country on account of abundant availability they will seek specific permission from SLC to do so.The SLC will ensure that the interests of the units using domestic produce are protected. Fresh licenses can be granted by the Committee for units which operate solely on imported raw material irrespective of the result of wood availability assessment in the State/UT. The license granted to a wood based industry shall remain (iv) valid for five years, from the date of such issue or renewal of License. However, notwithstanding anything contained in these guidelines, the Licensing Authority may, where there are reasons to believe that the Licensee is operating the wood based industry in contravention of the provisions of these guidelines or conditions of License or any Rules framed by the State Government or is in activities prejudicial to the interest of forest conservation or public interest, at any time after giving one month notice, revoke the license granted to such wood based industry. Application for renewal of license granted to a wood based (v) industrial unit shall be made at least three (3) months before the expiry of validity period. Transfer of license on sale/succession etc shall be done only (vi) with the approval of State Level Committee. Amended as :- The entries under Para-8 of the Guidelines are substituted with the following:- i. ii. No license to a wood based industry shall be granted or renewed without obtaining prior approval of the SLC. However, a SLC may delegate the power of renewal of license to a wood based industry to the Divisional Forest officers of the concerned Forest Divisions. Following industries/processing plants not using round logs of domestic origin or operating without a hand saw or re-saw or circular saw of more than thirty centimetre diameter shall not require license. Industries/processing plants which use: a. b. sawn timber, cane, bamboo, reed, plywood, veneers or imported wood, procured from legitimate sources. block board, MDF or similar wood -based products, procured from legitimate sources c. round log/timber from species declared as agro- forestry/agricultural crops and/or exempted from the purview of the jelling and transit regime in the concerned state/UT, and procured from legitimate sources -18- However, SLC of the concerned State may allow installation of circular saw of diameter upto 60 centimetre in such industries having specialized requirement. Such industries shall be registered with the Forest Department of the concerned state/UT and shall be regulated, details of which are to be prescribed by the concerned state/UT. iii. Transfer of license on sale/succession etc shall be done only with the approval of SLC.”

23. In compliance of Guidelines dated 11.11.2016, as amended vide Resolution dated 11.09.2017, Government of Himachal Pradesh constituted the State Level Committee vide notification dated 18.11.2017.

24. Certain persons, including respondent No.7-Mast Mohammad, who were carrying on Katha manufacturing through traditional means, had preferred CWP No.1942 of 2018 titled ‘Neelaksh Lakhanpal & Ors. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.,’ seeking directions to the respondents to permit them to convert their traditional units into mechanized/semi-mechanized units.

25. On

11.07.2023,

01.08.2023,

28.08.2023

12.09.2023, present petitioner in CWP No.10525 of 2025, preferred representations to the Hon’ble Chief Minister and Additional Chief Secretary (Forest), Himachal Pradesh, praying for withdrawal of restrictions imposed under Annexure-A under amended Rule 4 vide Notification dated 29.04.2008 upon IBR Boilers and for permitting -19- such units to run at par with other industrial units. It was also prayed that, till such restrictions were withdrawn, the ban on export of Khair wood outside the State should not be lifted.

26. Thereafter, Katha Manufacturing Association filed CWP No.2570 of 2024 titled ‘Katha Manufacturing Association & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.,’ inter alia, other reliefs, including seeking quashing of certain portion of Notification dated 29.04.2008, which were restricting trade and business by Katha bhatties. The Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 26.03.2024, taking into consideration that some of petitioners had submitted representation dated 12.09.2023 to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Himanchal Pradesh as well as Additional Chief Secretary (Forest), highlighting their grievances and pointing out the necessity for modifying the notification, and observing that petitioners can approach the SLC with similar representations to address their grievance, had decided the petition directing the petitioners to submit their representations to the SLC and and the SLC was directed to consider the same within two months and communicate its decision to them.

27. In sequel to the aforesaid order dated 26.03.2024 passed in CWP No.2570 of 2024, the petitioner, in the capacity of Pradhan of Laghu Katha Udyog, submitted representations to the -20- Principal Chief Conservator of Forests-cum-Chairman, SLC on

16.04.2024 and 02.05.2024. Vide communication dated 16.05.2024, he was directed to attend personal hearing on 10.06.2024, whereafter the proceedings of the meeting held on 10.06.2024 were communicated to him vide communication dated 24.06.2024.

28. During pendency of CWP No.1942 of 2018, respondent No.7-Mast Mohammad also preferred CWP No.5967 of 2024 titled ‘Mast Mohammad vs. Union of India & Ors.,’ intending to convert his traditional Katha Bhatti into Katha Bhatti using IBR boilers at par with similar permission granted to certain Katha Bhatties with submission that he had already submitted representation to the respondent-State.

29. Aforesaid CWP No.5967 of 2024 was decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 28.06.2024, permitting the petitioner therein to submit a detailed representation before the competent authority regarding his grievance, with direction to the competent authority, upon receipt of such representation, to decide the same within two weeks and communicate its decision to the petitioner.

30. Respondent No.7-Mast Mohammad had submitted his representation on 29.06.2024 in pursuance of the order dated

28.06.2024 passed in CWP No.5967 of 2024. -21-

31. Representations submitted petitioners respondent No.7-Mast Mohammad in pursuance of orders passed in CWP Nos.2570 and 5967 of 2024, along with other similar representations, were placed before the SLC in its 15th meeting held on 04.07.2024 for consideration.

32. The SLC in its 15th meeting held on 04.07.2024, after taking into consideration the annual Khairwood availability and consumption in the State as per field data (Forest Department Committee, 2007) in Table 1; Potential Khairwood Production as per TOF-R (Forest Survey of India, 2024) in Table 2; Annual Khairwood availability and consumption in the State as per field data collected in 2024 in Table 3; Comparative statement of Khairwood availability w.r.t. 2007, 2024 & (TOF-R) Study by FSI, in Table 4; on the basis of inference drawn from the critical analysis of the data determining Current Annual average Khairwood Availability in the State in Table 5; and Maximum annual potential productivity (tentative), representation of Himachal Katha Manufacturing Association through its President, i.e. the petitioner (in CWP No.10525/25) was considered in Agenda No.15.8. Relevant portion thereof is as under:- “Agenda item No. 15.8: In continuation to previous SLC meeting dated 08.05.2024 agenda item No. 14.5.2: "Discussion on enhancement of installed capacity and upgradation of machinery of IBR A boilers. Representation by -22- the Himachal Katha Manufacturing Association through its President Shri Ashok Kumar response to CWPNo. 2570/2024 titled as Katha Manufacturing Association and others (order passed dated 26.03.2024)"

1. Enhancement of installed capacity. The Association presented its case for enhancing the installed capacity on account of opening up of green felling in selected forest divisions and import of khair wood from other states. The main demand is as follows: "The restriction of 3750 Qtls khair wood imposed on our IBR boilers may kindly be withdrawn" Decisions: In view of above discussion the availability of khair wood production in the states has shows substantial increase. SLC is of considered opinion that limits prescribed for Khatta Bhatties with IBR boilers can be easily enhanced from the current capacity on account of increased availability of khair wood in the state considering current level of khair wood production in the state of HP and also, on the basis of TOF-R report submitted by Forest Survey of India in 2024. the Khairwood based industries in the state will be regulated as following conditions: a) b) c) On the basis of the Current Annual average Khairwood Availability in the state (Table 5), Kattha bhattis with IBR boilers will be allowed to in the range process Khairwood with bark between 5435 to 7500 quintals in entire year sourced from within the state of Himachal Pradesh. There would be no restriction on import of Khairwood from outside the state. Each Kattha Bhatti with IBR boilers requires to register its unit afresh with the concerned DCF/DFO after paying a processing fee of Rs.1 lac.

2. Enhancement in time schedule of operation: -23- Presently the Katha Bhatties using IBR Boilers are allowed to operate from November to March. The President Katha Association demanded enhancement in time limit on following account: 1) 2) For regular maintenance of machinery. For processing Khair Wood that can be imported from outside the State of HP. Decision taken In view of the SLC decision above, IBR boilers may be allowed to operate throughout the year as it is an industrial activity capable of running throughout the year.”

33. In the same meeting in Agenda No.3, representation of respondent No.7-Mast Mohammad was considered by taking into consideration the comparison between traditional system and mechanized system pointed out by the petitioner with the prayer and arrived at a decision as under:- “Prayer of applicant: i) Offending part of the notification dated 29.04.2008 restricting trade and business of katha bhatties in the State of H.P. may kindly be modified in view of the subsequent events. ii) The representation may kindly be allowed to convert traditional katha bhatties into IBR Boiler as per permissions are granted to other 39 traditional katha bhatties to convert into IBR Boilers. Decision taken: After detailed discussion, SLC is of the considered view that the present mode of operation of traditional Kattha Bhattis is highly inefficient and poses a direct threat to the forests and wildlife through environmental hazards. Such traditional units are energy inefficient with limited production efficiency. Moreover, they pose direct occupational hazards to the labor employed due to lack of safety provisions. In the context of a) increased Khairwood availability in the state as per above, and to promote secure, safe and efficient Kattha extraction and processing in the state, SLC decides the following in the case of Sh. Mast Mohammad: -24- a) b) c) To promote to ensure technical upgradation and environmentally safe and economically efficient Kattha extraction and processing, henceforth, all traditional Kattha Bhattis will have to be converted to Kattha Bhattis with IBR boilers. This will ensure uniformity as well as promote security of the unit through Inspector, Boiler to prevent any possible industrial damage or loss to the labor. Each traditional Kattha Bhatti which will be converted to Kattha Bhattis with IBR boilers requires to register its unit afresh with the concerned DCF/DFO after paying a processing fee of Rs. 1 lac. Each such newly registered Kattha Bhattis with IBR boilers will be allowed to process Khairwood with bark in the range between 5435 to 7500 quintals in entire year sourced from within the state of Himachal Pradesh. SLC is also of the considered view that as other traditional Kattha Bhattis are similarly situated as in the case of Sh. Mast Mohammad, any owner of other traditional Kattha Bhattis can convert to Katta Bhatti with IBR boiler with the same conditions as listed above (a to c).”

34. Respondent No.7-Mast Mohammad was directed by Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (HoFF)-cum-Chairman, State Level Committee (SLC), vide communication dated 18.07.2024, to attend his office.

35. On 29.07.2024, minutes of the meeting of the SLC held on 04.07.2024 were approved by Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (HoFF)-cum-Chairman, SLC.

36. In the aforesaid backdrop, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Himachal Pradesh, in compliance with order passed in CWP No.2570 of 2024, passed order dated 30.07.2024 (Annexure R-7/5) by considering and deciding the representation of -25- the petitioner in terms of the decision taken by the SLC in its meeting held on 04.07.2024.

37. Similarly, in pursuance of the order passed in CWP No.5967 of 2024, the representation of respondent No.7-Mast Mohammad was also considered and decided vide separate order dated 30.07.2024 (Annexure R-7/6) in terms of decision taken by the SLC in the said meeting.

38. Thereafter, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, vide letter dated 31.07.2024 addressed to Principal Secretary (Forest) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, submitted a proposal seeking amendment of Notification dated 29.04.2008 governing regulations of Katha Bhatties and Katha Bhatties using IBR Boilers, particularly with respect to Annexure-A thereof, as per decision taken by SLC in its meeting held on 04.07.2024 approved on

29.07.2024 and endorsed in two even dated office orders issued on

30.07.2024.

39. The aforesaid communication was considered by the Government on 07.10.2024 and 15.10.2024 through Additional Chief Secretary (Forest) to Government of Himachal Pradesh, and vide communication dated 16.10.2024, requisite information, as -26- discussed in the meeting, was sought from Principal Chief Conservator (HoFF), Shimla.

40. In response to aforesaid communication dated

16.10.2024, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (HoFF), vide letter dated 04.11.2024, submitted the requisite information, comments and detailed remarks along with Annexure-I, containing the existing provisions, proposed amendments and justification for the proposed amendments.

41. In the meanwhile, on 26.09.2024, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director General of Forests-cum-Appellate Authority, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Regional Office, Chandigarh, as provided under Clause 9(i) and (ii) of the Guidelines, 2016, assailing the decision dated 04.07.2024 taken by the SLC on certain points.

42. In the interregnum, on 26.10.2024, thirteen applicants, including Neelaksh Lakhanpal and others, who were petitioners in CWP No.1942 of 2018, engaged in manufacturing of Katha through traditional Bhatties, submitted representation to the Principal Chief Conservator (HoFF) with prayer to consider and decide their representation, in view of order dated 30.07.2024 passed by -27- Principal Chief Conservator (HoFF) in compliance of judgment dated

28.06.2024 passed in CWP No.5967 of 2024.

43. On 09.12.2024, CWP No.1942 of 2018 was also decided by learned Single Bench of this High Court by taking into consideration order dated 28.06.2024 passed in CWP No.5967 of 2024, directing the competent authority to consider and decide the representations of the petitioners therein in terms of order dated

30.07.2024 passed by competent authority, i.e. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Himachal Pradesh.

44. The appeal filed by petitioner (in CWP No.10525/2025) before Appellate Authority on 26.09.2024, against decision of SLC dated 04.07.2024, was not decided within the period of sixty days, as prescribed under the Guidelines. Consequently, the petitioner approached this Court by filing CWP No.15763 of 2024, titled Ashok Kumar vs. Union of India and others, which was decided on 20.12.2024, whereby the Appellate Authority was directed to decide the appeal within four weeks.

45. In pursuance of the order dated 09.12.2024 passed in CWP No.1942 of 2018, petitioner-Neelaksh Lakhanpal and others also submitted separate representations on 27.12.2024 consideration of their cases in accordance with decision of the SLC -28- dated 30.07.2024 and in terms of the directions passed by this Court vide order dated 09.12.2024 in CWP No.1942 of 2018.

46. Vide communication dated 03.01.2025, petitioner- Neelaksh Lakhanpal was requested to attend personal hearing on

04.01.2025 by Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (HoFF).

47. Pending consideration representations preferred by the petitioners in CWP No.1942 of 2018, Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (HoFF) vide letter No.Ft 783-53(Mgt) Katha Bhatti Vol.IX dated 04.01.2025 submitted final proposal of necessary amendments to Government for approval.

48. Vide office order No.11/2025 dated 06.01.2025, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, after taking consideration the decision of the SLC dated 04.07.2024, concluded that the petitioners in CWP No.1942 of 2018 could convert their traditional Katha Bhatties into Katha Bhatties using IBR Boilers after fulfilling all codal formalities, as prescribed by the SLC in its meeting held on 04.07.2024, subject to Government approval.

49. Thereafter, on 06.01.2025 itself vide letter No.Ft 42- 1548/2018(Mgt)Neelaksh Lakhan Pal./3339 dated 06.01.2025, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, had communicated the decision taken vide order No.11/2025 dated 06.01.2025 along with -29- copy thereof with request to carry out necessary amendment as proposed vide communication dated 04.01.2025.

50. After undertaking the aforesaid exercise, Government of Himachal Pradesh, Department of Forest, vide notification dated

15.03.2025, amended Annexure-A of Notification dated 29.04.2008 regarding conditions for regulating working of traditional Katha Bhatties and Katha Bhatties using IBR boilers with revised Annexure A-I, relevant conditions whereof are as under:- “1.

2. Presently, the number of traditional katha bhatties allowed to operate in H.P. are 40. All: these traditional Katha Bhattis will have to be converted to Katha Bhatti with /BR boiler subject to payment of processing fee. Presently, the number of Katha units using IBR boilers are 39, which was the number of units allowed to install baby boilers upto 31.03.2007. 2(a) The total.number of katha bhattis with IBR boilers will remain fixed at 79.

4. All the boilers will have/to be registered with the Chief Inspector of Boilers of the State. Each such newly registered Kattha Bhattis with IBR boilers will be allowed to process Khairwood with bark in the range between 5435 to 7500 quintals in entire year sourced from within the state of Himachal Pradesh. If at any time the quantity of khair heartwood of equivalent khair wood with bark is found to be more than the permissible limit applicable at the time of inspection, its registration will be cancelled.”

51. In pursuance of the decision taken by the SLC on

04.07.2024 and Notification dated 15.03.2025 issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh vide Registration No.3/2025-26, -30- M/s Priya Katha Udhyog, a proprietary concern of petitioner-Ashok Kumar, was registered as a depot for extraction of Katha through Katha Bhatti using IBR Boiler under the provisions of the Timber Act, 1968 and the Rules framed thereunder for a period of one year, on year-to-year basis, for the year 2025–2026, i.e. from 01.04.2025 to

31.03.2026. The said was granted after deposit of Rs.1,000/- as registration fee, realized on 07.04.2025 vide HIMGRAN No.A25D189232 dated 07.04.2025 and Rs.1,00,000/- as processing fee, realized vide Demand Draft No.668325 dated 29.03.2025, in terms of the recommendation of the SLC, thereby permitting the petitioner to process Khairwood with bark allowed in the range of 5435 to 7500 quintals throughout the year, sourced from within the State of Himachal Pradesh.

52. On 30.04.2025, the appeal preferred by the petitioner (in CWP No.10525/2025) against decision dated 04.07.2024 of SLC was dismissed by Appellate Authority.

53. After rejection of appeal on 30.04.2025, petitioner in CWP No.10525 of 2025 has preferred this writ petition on

01.07.2025, by assailing the Notification dated 29.04.2008 to limited extent with prayer to set aside decision of the SLC taken with respect to Agenda No.3 in this meeting held on 04.07.2024 and also to set -31- aside the order dated 30.04.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority. Subsequently, challenge has also been laid to Notification dated

15.03.2025 issued by respondent-State to amending Annexure-A appended to Notification dated 29.04.2008.

54. The petitioner in CWP No.14736 of 2025 has also preferred this petition on similar lines by filing the same on

10.09.2025. B. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONERS:

55. In CWP No.10525 of 2025, as also noticed supra, Notification dated 29.04.2008 has also been assailed on the ground that it is arbitrary and discriminatory to the extent that it imposes restrictions upon Katha Bhatties using IBR Boilers without there being any intelligible differentia, and, therefore, it is violative of Article 14 as well as Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, because it is not reasonable restriction, as mentioned in Article 19(6) of the Constitution.

56. The remaining grounds urged in both petitions are almost identical.

57. It been contended on behalf of petitioners that decision of the 15th meeting of SLC held on 07.04.2024 related to Agenda No.3 and also the order dated 30.04.2025 passed in appeal by -32- Appellate Authority, are arbitrary, inasmuch as the SLC exceeded its jurisdiction by taking the impugned decision.

58. Referring the directions issued by the Apex Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India, reported in (2016) 13 SCC 612 (2), it has been submitted that neither in the directions of the Apex Court nor in the Guidelines framed by Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, there is any power to SLC to issue direction for conversion of category of wood-based industry.

59. It has been further submitted that conversion is a legislative function in terms of Timber Act, 1968 read with Timber Rules, 1969, as amended from time to time, but ignoring the same SLC has passed its impugned decision, which is beyond jurisdiction and the said fact has also been ignored by Appellate Authority while dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner.

60. It has been submitted that the decision of the SLC dated

04.07.2024 relating to Agenda No.3, permitting and directing the traditional Katha Bhatties to be converted into Katha Bhatties using IBR Boilers, would amount to repealing the sub-classification of traditional Katha Bhatties and Katha Bhatties using IBR Boilers introduced under the Timber Rules, 1969, as amended in 2008, and -33- would also amount to abolishing the categorization of wood-based industries depots in terms of Rule 2 of the Timber Rules, 1969. Whereas, the SLC does not have any power to repeal any legislative Act, dehors the validity of reasons for the same, and therefore, it amounts to abuse of process of law, and the same is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

61. It has been submitted that, while taking the decision under Agenda No.3 in the SLC meeting dated 04.07.2024, the SLC has taken a decision in rem by making this decision applicable to all traditional Katha Bhatties without there being any representation on their respective sides, but there was only one representation of respondent No.7, and therefore, in terms of direction of the Apex Court and the Guidelines, the SLC has no power to initiate suo motu proceedings and pass such general directions, as has been passed with regard to Agenda No.3 in impugned decision dated 04.07.2024.

62. It has been submitted that the power to issue directions in the nature of mandamus vests only with the High Court or the Apex Court, whereas the SLC neither was nor is vested with any such authority to issue directions mandating that all traditional Katha Bhatties be converted into Katha Bhatties using IBR Boilers and, -34- therefore, the impugned decision of the SLC is without jurisdiction and authority of law.

63. It has been submitted that order dated 30.04.2025 passed in appeal is a non-speaking order, having been passed without proper discussion on the validity and legality of the impugned decision taken by the SLC.

64. It has been advocated that Guidelines issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, provides that function of SLC is to assess the availability of timber in the State and, while it enhanced its capacity, to satisfy itself that timber has to be available for future, and other wood-based industries, and in present case, on one hand the SLC has enhanced the capacity of Katha Bhatties using IBR Boilers to 7500 quintals, but by converting all traditional Katha Bhatties to Katha Bhatties using IBR Boilers, there would be an implied increase of the capacity of consumption of Khair wood, which would lead to ecological imbalance, and also would prejudice the petitioners, who have set up and taken license for Katha Bhatties using IBR Boilers, wherein this act is contrary to the scope of function, prescribed in the Guidelines for SLC. -35-

65. It has been submitted that as SLC has no power to convert or recommend for conversion under existing Rules, not only decision of the SLC, but also the subsequent conversion order, recommendation and all consequential action, including amendment of relevant provision of law, are bad in law and suffers from vice of excessive delegation, and therefore, impugned amendment vide notification dated 15.03.2025, is also not sustainable.

66. It has been submitted the action of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Himachal Pradesh, in converting Katha Bhatties into Katha Bhatties using IBR Boilers, is arbitrary, and he has taken such decision in January, 2025, despite pendency of the appeal, in haste and it shows arbitrariness in the action of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Himachal Pradesh.

67. It has been submitted that perusal of Section 3 of the Timber Act, 1968 demonstrates that it was and is incumbent upon the Government to publish the draft amendment in the Official Gazette, invite objections and suggestions, and thereafter publish the final amendment. However, according to the petitioners, the said mandatory exercise has never been undertaken while issuing Notification dated 15.03.2025 and, therefore, the action of the State is arbitrary and contrary to Section 3 of the Timber Act, 1968. -36-

68. It has been submitted that vide amendment Timber Rules, 2008, respondent-State has provided setting of two type of sale depots, i.e. Katha Bhatties and Katha Bhatties using IBR Boilers, whereas Annexure-A incorporated by Timber Rules, 2008, provides only regulatory conditions and nothing more, as stated in the Timber Rules as amended in 2008. Though vide impugned notification, respondent-State has sought to amend only conditions and nothing more, however, in the guise of amending the condition, respondent-State has sought to delete the ‘sale depot’, which it incorporated through amendment Timber Rules, 2008, but the said deletion is being carried out without any amendment, which is impermissible in law.

69. It has been submitted that, while issuing the impugned Notification dated 15.03.2025, there was no independent application of mind by the Executive, inasmuch as the only justification for such amendment was the implementation of the impugned decision of the SLC in the case of Mast Mohammad dated 30.07.2024, whereas, according to the petitioners, the decision of the SLC itself was and is without jurisdiction and, therefore, the impugned Notification, which seeks to implement a non est decision, is also bad in law. -37-

70. It has been submitted by learned counsel that it is evident from the proceedings of the meetings and subsequent office orders passed by Department of Forest through Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Himachal Pradesh, and correspondence between the Forest Department and the Government as well as reason for issuing impugned notification dated 15.03.2025, it was not the recommendation of the SLC, but it was the decision of the SLC, which has been implemented by the State without applying the mind by considering it as binding decision, whereas SLC was a recommendatory body, was not competent to take impugned decision, and the decision was to be taken by the competent authority by applying its independent mind.

71. It has been submitted that the issuance of Notification dated 15.03.2025 when decision of SLC was sub judice before Appellate Authority in terms of the Guidelines, much prior to passing of decision dated 30.04.2025 passed by Appellate Authority, was also impermissible under law.

72. It has been submitted that, throughout the impugned action, the proceedings of the SLC have been referred to and treated as a “decision” rather than a “recommendation,” thereby -38- demonstrating the SLC exceeded recommendatory jurisdiction.

73. It has been submitted that power and role assigned to the SLC was only to ascertain availability of Khair wood after undertaking the exercise on the basis of data available from survey, and that the SLC was not empowered to recommend conversion and as it has no authority to recommend conversion, the impugned decision regarding conversion of Katha Bhatties into Katha Bhatties using IBR Boilers is usurpation of power, which vests in the legislature, and therefore, decision of the SLC is illegal.

74. It has further been submitted that Annexure A-I has been notified solely on the basis of the decision of the SLC, without any independent justification or due consideration by the competent authority.

75. It has further been submitted that the conditions notified in Annexure-A appended to the Rules after amendment of Rule 4 form part of the Rules themselves and, therefore, the procedure prescribed for amendment of the Rules was required to be followed. According to the petitioners, Notification dated 15.03.2025 has been issued without adopting the prescribed procedure. -39-

76. It has been submitted that it is settled law that where an Act prescribes that something is to be done in a particular manner, the concerned authority is bound to follow that prescribed procedure alone, and any deviation therefrom would render the decision or action illegal and non est in the eyes of law. C. SUBMISSION OF RESPONDENT-STATE:

77. Learned Advocate General has submitted that the issue involved in the present case pertains to regulation of wood-based industries, specifically Katha processing units in the State of Himachal Pradesh, under the overarching framework established by the Apex Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India, reported in (2016) 13 SCC 612 (2), and the Guidelines issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, in pursuance thereto.

78. It has been further submitted that the impugned decision regarding conversion of traditional Katha processing units into Katha Bhatties using IBR Boilers was taken on the basis of recommendations of the SLC submitted to the State Government, but only after due consideration, queries and responses exchanged between the Government and the Forest Department, culminating into Government Notification. According to the respondent-State, the -40- underlying objective was to align the functioning of Katha processing units with the National mandate of linking processing capacity to sustainable availability of raw material, thereby preventing ecological degradation and promoting responsible utilization of forest produce.

79. With the aforesaid submissions, learned Advocate General has contended that the petitioners have failed to present a complete and accurate picture of the facts, the regulatory process and the governing principles underlying regulation of wood-based industries and the proposed conversion of traditional Katha Bhatties into Katha Bhatties using IBR Boilers.

80. It has been submitted that the decision taken by the SLC in its 15th meeting held on 04.07.2024 under Agenda No.3 was essentially a recommendation to the State Government concerning conversion of traditional Katha Bhatties into Katha Bhatties using IBR Boilers, stemming from the need to address multiple pending applications and to bring such units within an effective regulatory framework, and, therefore, it was not a final unilateral order directing conversion in rem. The State Government, according to the respondent-State, independently considered recommendation, raised queries and sought clarifications from the Forest Department regarding feasibility and implications thereof, -41- including aspects relating to raw material availability and regulatory compliance.

81. It has been submitted that the decision to permit conversion of traditional Katha Bhatties into Katha Bhatties using IBR Boilers, subject to certain conditions, was and is ultimately embodied in the Government Notification issued after the aforesaid process of consideration and deliberation, and that such decision was not taken solely on the basis of the individual case of respondent No.7, but also in view of several pending representations received from similarly situated traditional Katha Bhatti owners seeking such conversion/ modernization.

82. It has been submitted that the orders passed by the Apex Court and Guidelines issued by the State, particularly Clause 4(i) of the Guidelines, authorize the SLC to devise suitable mechanisms for sustainable use of timber in a manner that does not adversely affect the area of forests.

83. It has been advocated on behalf of the respondent-State that modernization through IBR Boilers, which are significantly more efficient in extraction of Katha from Khairwood as compared to traditional methods and which often utilize wood chips, potentially sourced from non-forest areas or processing residue, as fuel, is a -42- step towards more efficient raw material utilization and minimization of waste of valuable Khair resource. Such conversion, according to the respondent-State, would contribute not only to sustainable use of primary raw material, but also in increasing the overall processing capacity. It has been submitted that this crucial aspect has been entirely omitted by the petitioners while presenting the facts.

84. It has been submitted that after taking into consideration, the recommendations of SLC, Government took a policy decision, which fundamentally aimed at bringing unregulated units within regulated units framework by attempting to balance economic activity with ecological mandate of sustainable resource use, guided by the principles emanating from the Apex Court, such as principle of sustainable development and precautionary principle. It has been further submitted that precautionary principal requires anticipatory action to be taken to prevent harm, and it is not always necessary that there should be direct evidence of harm to the environment.

85. Referring Scientific Assessment Report, placed on record as Annexure R-6/1 with reply of the State, it has been submitted that in compliance with the mandate of the Apex Court and the applicable Guidelines framed by the Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change, prior to recommending the framework -43- for conversion of traditional Bhatties into IBR Boiler units, the Forest Department conducted a thorough scientific assessment of availability of Khairwood the State and the SLC's recommendations as well as the subsequent Government notifications were made after due consideration of finding of this assessment, aiming to ensure that any permitted conversion and resulting capacity remained aligned with sustainably available raw material.

86. It has been submitted that the recommendations and decision of the SLC is in consonance with the order passed by the Apex Court on 05.10.2015 in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India, reported in (2016) 13 SCC 612 (2).

87. It has been submitted that in Clause 4(i) of the Guidelines 2016, amended in 2017, explicitly requires the SLC to devise a suitable mechanism for sustainable use of timber in a manner that it does not adversely affect the forest of the area by assessing the availability of timber in the State by way of appropriate study on demand and supply.

88. It has been submitted that the SLC was constituted for a specific purpose, which includes, inter alia, the function of assessing timber availability and regulating grant of license and enhancement -44- of capacity strictly on the basis of sustainable raw material availability and the impugned decision/recommendation of the SLC is in consonance with such functions.

89. In order to substantial the plea that several pending applications received from traditional Katha Bhatties owners seeking permission for conversion into IBR Boilers units, copies of such applications/requests have been placed on record along with reply as Annexure R-6/2 to R-6/14. Referring these applications, it has been submitted that the SLC considered the representation of respondent No.7-Mast Mohammad in a broader context so as to devise a framework applicable to all similarly situated units seeking modernization through IBR boilers. It has been submitted that these applicants had already filed CWP No.1942 of 2018 in the year 2018 for the same purpose.

90. It has been submitted that it is not a mandamus issued in rem, but it is a decision taken after considering the survey report, which has already been referred by the SLC while considering Agenda No.15.8, wherein data received from field agencies have been reproduced in various tables, and therefore, the SLC has not exceeded its jurisdiction, as it has recommended/taken decision by addressing the numerous pending requests with reference to -45- availability of the Khair wood, which was available with the committee in that meeting. Therefore, it has been submitted, the decision taken by the SLC under Agenda No.3 is not a legislative act in rem, but a recommendation or proposal, forwarded to the State Government within a regulatory framework.

91. It has been submitted that it is not a case where recommendations or decision of the SLC, in the shape of decision under Agenda No.3, were the sole basis for issuance of Notification dated 15.03.2025. Rather, on the basis of decision of the SLC, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Himachal Pradesh, submitted the matter for consideration of the Government, whereafter due deliberations were undertaken, as is evident from the record and other communications placed on record, and only thereafter the impugned notification was issued after subjective satisfaction of the competent authority.

92. It has been further submitted that Appellate Authority while deciding the appeal preferred by petitioner (in CWP No.10525 of 2024), has also duly considered the prayers of the petitioner and the proceedings of the SLC, and after taking into account the entire material before it, has dismissed the appeal. Therefore, it has been contended that the order passed by the Appellate Authority, in no -46- manner, can be said to be a non-speaking order passed without assigning reasons.

93. Learned Additional Advocate General has further submitted that, in no manner, decision of the respondents is violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, inasmuch as the conditions framed for regulating Katha Bhatties, which are wood-based industries, constitute reasonable restrictions in public interest aimed at conserving forests, preventing illegal felling and ensuring sustainable resource management.

94. It has been submitted by learned Advocate General that, vide notification dated 15.03.2025, there has been no amendment to the Rules themselves, but only the regulatory terms contained in Annexure-A have been reframed, and therefore, there was no necessity for pre-publication of Annexure A-I as is required for amendment of the Rules. In the alternative, it has been submitted that, in case it is considered that the pre-publication of Annexure A-I was required, even then failure in pre-publication will not render Notification dated 15.03.2025 illegal, as in the Rules, pre-publication is directory in nature, because it does not provide any consequences for not publishing the draft notification before issuance of final notification. -47-

95. Report on Inventory of Trees Outside Forest Rural (TOF-R) in Himachal Pradesh, published by Forest Survey of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, placed on record as Annexure R-1 along with the reply filed by the State, has been referred by learned Advocate General for demonstrating availability of Khair wood in the State of Himachal Pradesh and for justifying the recommendations/decision of the SLC taken in its meeting held on 04.07.2024

96. With regard to policy decision, learned Advocate General has placed reliance upon following paras of judgment of the Apex Court in Balco Employees’ Union (Regd.) vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2002) 2 SCC 333:- “46. It is evident from the above that it is neither within the domain of the Courts nor the scope of the judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise or whether better public policy can be evolved. Nor are our Courts inclined to strike down a policy at the behest of a petitioner merely because it has been urged that a different policy would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or more logical. In a democracy, it is the prerogative of each elected 92. Government to follow it's own policy. Often a change in Government may result in the shift in focus or change in economic policies. Any such change may result in adversely affecting some vested interests. Unless any illegality is committed in the execution of the policy or the same is contrary to law or mala fide, a decision bringing about change cannot per se be interfered with by the Court.” -48-

97. Learned Advocate General has also referred to the following paras of the decision of the Apex Court in Divisional Manager Aravali Golf Club & Anr. vs. Chander Hass & Anr., reported in (2008) 1 SCC 683:- “17. Before parting with this case we would like to make some observations about the limits of the powers of the judiciary. We are compelled to make these observations because we are repeatedly coming across cases where Judges are unjustifiably trying to perform executive or legislative functions. In our opinion this is clearly unconstitutional. In the name of judicial activism Judges cannot cross their limits and try to take over functions which belong to another organ of the State.