Orissa High Court
Case Details
AFR ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK W.P.(C) NO. 20221 OF 2023 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. --------------- Sanjib Kumar Mohanty and others ..… Petitioners -Versus- State of Odisha and others ….. Opp. Parties For Petitioners : M/s. B. Bhuyan, S. Sahoo and S.S. Bhuyan, Advocates. For Opp. Parties : Mr. D.K. Mohanty, Addl. Government Advocate [O.P. Nos. 1 to 5] Mr. Abhishekh Dash, A.K. Dash, A. Khandelwal and A. Mishra, Advocates [O.P. Nos. 6, 7 & 8] P R E S E N T: THE HONOURABLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DR. B.R. SARANGI AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Date of hearing: 06.12.2023:: Date of judgment: 15.12.2023 Page 1 of 71 DR. B.R. SARANGI, J. The petitioners, in this writ petition filed by way of public interest litigation, seek direction to the opposite parties to cause an enquiry with regard to involvement of two Saw Mills, namely, “M/s Behera Saw Mill” and “M/s Jalaram Saw Mill”, of which opposite parties no.6 and 7 are respectively the proprietors, in illegal wood logging and wood laundering and take appropriate action. They further seek direction to the opposite party-authorities to take action for relocating/shifting of those Saw Mills to a radial distance beyond the restrictive area of Similipal Reserve Forest (National Park), Hatikote Reserve Forest, Mancha Bandha Reserve Forest and Village Forest. 2. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the petitioners, claiming to be public spirited persons having no personal interest, individual gain, private motive or oblique reasons, have filed this public interest litigation, stating inter alia that the private opposite parties no.6 and 7 are the proprietors and owners of M/s Page 2 of 71 Behera Saw Mill and M/s Jalaram Saw Mill situated in Chancha Industrial Estate, Baripada. M/s Behera Saw Mill is located over IDCO-Plot Nos.85 (P), 86(P), 87 and 88 measuring Ac.0.300 for 2500 cft per month, whereas M/s Jalaram Saw Mill is located on IDCO Plot Nos.8284, 860 (P), measuring Ac.0.344 for 2900 cft. per month. Validity of the licenses of both the Saw Mills were from 15.11.2021 up to 24.11.2023. The conditions attached to the licenses were as follows:- a) License is not transferable. b) The licenses shall maintain the registers in Forms D, E, F, and post them up to date at i.e end of each day 8 p.m. of the day. c) The registers shall be produced for inspection and check when demanded by any Forest Officer of and above the rank of Forester. Any such Forest officer shall have the power to enter into the premises of this Saw Mill or Saw Pit. For the purpose of inspection and securing compliance with the condition of the license and any obstruction given in coming out, the said inspection and non-production of registers shall be deemed to be violation on the conditions of the license. d) Monthly consolidated account shall be submitted to the Divisional Forest Officer before the 10th of the succeeding month. e) The Saw Mill or Saw Pit as well as the timber shall be open for inspection by the Page 3 of 71 f) Officer mentioned in condition (3) whenever required. The Saar Mill or Saw Pit shall be closed at the end of the period prescribed in the license and the license shall be returned to the Divisional Forest Officer. h) g) The license shall not undertake sawing of timber belonging to other persons or job work, unless he is satisfied about the bonafides of such limber by examining the connected permits and the marks on the timber, If the bonafides of the timber is suspected, he shall detain it and immediately report the fact to the nearest. Forest Officer or Police Officer for taking further action. The timber received from other persons for job work shall be stacked saving on separately both before and after sawing. For breach of any of the above condition, liable to punishment as the license provided under Section 14 of the Act.” k) is i) j) 2.1. The above two Saw Mills are situated within 1 KM radial distance of Mancha Bandha Reserve Forest, 5 KM radial distance from Hatikote Reserve Forest and 10 KM radial distance from Similipal Reserve Forest (National Park). Though opposite parties no.6 and 7 are the owners and proprietors of two Saw Mills, in fact they are not operating the said Saw Mills and those two Saw Mills are Page 4 of 71 operated by opposite party no.8, who is a wood mafia and involved in illegal felling of trees and wood laundering by utilizing these two Saw Mills which are situated within close proximity of Mancha Bandha, Hatikote and Similipal Reserve Forest (National Park). As such, every day a large number of trees are illegally cut and removed without any valid permit and in violation of Forest Act and Rules in force and brought to these Saw Mills for sawing and, thereby, making raw materials for production of different wood items in cheaper rate. To justify the same, it is pleaded that though these two Saw Mills belonged to two different persons, namely, opposite parties no.6 and 7, but the mobile number, which was given by both the Saw Mills, belonged to opposite party no.8. Thereby, those two Saw Mills are controlled and operated by opposite party no.8. It is further alleged that though the normal rate for sawing wood is Rs.50/- to Rs.100/- per cft., but opposite party no.8 is charging Rs.300/- per cft. from the local people as per his desire. Page 5 of 71 2.2. Section 4 of the Odisha Saw Mills and Saw Pits (Control), Act 1991 prohibits establishment or operation of Saw Mills within reserve forest, protected forest or any forest area or within 10 KM from the boundary of any forest or forest area. No Saw Mills are to be allowed to be operated within such restricted area. For the purpose of granting license to the Saw Mills, the Odisha Saw Mills and Saw Pits (Control) Rules, 1993 were formulated by the Govt. of Odisha. Rule-4 of the Odisha Saw Mills and Saw Pits (Control) Rules, 1993 governs the field in the matter of granting license to the Saw Mill. Though it is the duty of the Saw Mill owner, whenever there are reasons to believe that wood brought to his Saw Mill is illegal/ unauthorized, to immediately inform the Forest Authorities regarding such illegal/unauthorized wood, opposite party no.8, who is a wood mafia, is not carrying out the purpose of the Rules, rather causing harassment to the public at large. Though grievances are made by the Page 6 of 71 petitioners to the authorities, namely, forest officials and police, no action is being taken. 2.3. Earlier, one Bholanath Behera, for the selfsame allegations, had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) PIL No.13051 of 2023, which was disposed of by this Court, vide order dated 27.04.2023, directing the petitioner to file fresh representation to the appropriate authority. The forest authorities are not enquiring into the matter nor taking any legal action on the grievance made by the petitioners along with other inhabitants. It is further pleaded that since Similipal Reserve Forest (National Park) is situated at a distance of 10 KM radial, the Saw Mill owners should not be allowed to operate their Saw Mills within the restricted zone and the same should be either stopped or relocated/shifted to a radial distance beyond the restrictive area of the Similipal Reserve Forest (National Park), Hatikote Reserve Forest, Manchabandha Forest and Village Forest. Hence, this writ petition. Page 7 of 71 3.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. S.S. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that opposite parties no.6 and 7, contrary to the terms and condition no.16(a) of the license, have transferred the control of the Saw Mills in the name of opposite party no.8, who is a wood mafia and is involved in illegal felling of trees, which was admitted by opposite party no.4 in the counter affidavit. But opposite party no.4, having hands in gloves with the private opposite parties no.6, 7 and 8, is not taking any action. To fortify his argument, it is contended that the mobile number provided by opposite party nos.6 and 7 in the Govt. website belonged to opposite party no.8 and, therefore, there is nexus between opposite parties no.6 and 7 with opposite party no.8 for illegal using of Saw Mills for illegal gain. It is further contended that the Saw Mills are being operated within the prohibitory zone and the forest officials are not regularly monitoring the activities of the Saw Mills by installing CCTV and taking any real time data, because of which they are heavily Page 8 of 71 involved in illegal felling of trees in the reserve forest. Thereby, the action of the authority is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law. It is further contended that the Saw Mills have also not taken consent to establish and operate from the State Pollution Control Board, whereas other Saw Mills are operating after obtaining the said permission. It is further contended that the Saw Mills even though are engaged in felling of trees from the reserve forest, but they have not obtained any license, as is mandated by the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. It is further contended that Baripada City in the year 2023 has been recorded as the hottest place, which warrants an immediate action to prevent the work being carried out by the Saw Mills directly affecting the environment. It is further contended that even if the Saw Mills have rehabilitated as per the orders of the Supreme Court, but the said orders never intended for the rehabilitation of the Saw Mills inside the prohibitory zone by establishing industrial estate. It is contended that the Page 9 of 71 legislative intent behind the Act was to regulate the Saw Mill operation throughout the State and to control deforestation. Before enactment of the Act, the license was required by private individuals to operate within forests and in the surrounding. Subsequently, the 1991 Act was introduced incorporating the absolute ban in the prohibitory zone. It is further contended that the 3rd proviso introduced after amendment has to be read constructively with the first proviso and not destructively and if done the latter would defeat the legislative intent of the Act so also the force of the Act would be stripped away and would result in the whole Act being reduced to mere pieces of paper. To substantiate his contention, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied upon the judgments of this Court, as well as apex Court in the cases of Laxminarayan Saw Mill v. State of Odisha, 1995 (1) OLR 1; Saraswati Saw Mill v. State of Odisha, (1995) 79 CLT 61, Sushila Saw Mill v. State of Odisha, Page 10 of 71 (1995) 5 SCC 615; T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 267; and Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1997 SC 3297. 4. Mr. D.K. Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties no.1 to 5 vehemently contended that action has been taken in compliance of the orders passed by the apex Court, but that itself cannot enure to the benefit of the petitioners. Rather, the present writ petition, in the nature of public interest litigation, is not maintainable either in facts or in law. As such, the nature of allegations, which have been made by the petitioners against opposite parties no.6, 7 and 8 is purely of “personal interest” but not of “public interest”. It is further contended that the apex Court in W.P.(C) No. 356 of 2007 and in different IAs passed orders on 16.08.2010 that the State of Odisha to implement the directions of the apex Court contained in orders dated 10.07.2009 and 07.05.2010 and carry out necessary amendments to the provisions of the Act and Rules Page 11 of 71 framed thereunder in order to give effect to the rehabilitation plan and that the industrial estates have to be identified so that the Saw Mills are appropriately rehabilitated in terms of the directions issued by the apex Court. It is further contended that the allegations made by the petitioners that the two Saw Mills of opposite parties no.6 and 7 are operated and controlled by opposite party no.8 involving rampant illegal felling of trees and wood laundering and these two Saw Mills are situated within 10 KM radial distance of reserve forest is not correct. It is contended that opposite parties no.6 and 7, being the proprietors of the above named Saw Mills, submitted the documents like monthly returns, show cause notices, etc. and, as such, opposite party no.8 is being authorized by the proprietors of the Saw Mills to receive any type of letters, documents from all sources and execute documents as well as verification on behalf of them. As such, if the allegations made by the petitioners are taken into consideration, then opposite party no.8 has Page 12 of 71 not involved in any forest offence nor any case is pending against him for illegal felling of trees and removal of the same. It is further contended that the representation dated 17.04.2023 has not been received by the authority and after receipt of the representation dated 15.05.2023, the ACF (Enforcement), Baripada Forest Division was directed to conduct an enquiry with regard to the allegations made in the representation, who in turn conducted the enquiry and submitted his report vide letter dated 04.07.2023 indicating that the allegations regarding illegal establishment of two Saw Mills are not correct. Similarly, the allegation of furtive sawing of timbers by the smugglers with the help of illegal Saw Mills is also not correct. As such, the allegations made in the representation are incorrect and the same have been denied by the ACF (Environment). Furthermore, the functioning of the Saw Mills is recorded in the CCTV cameras. To ensure working of all the cameras, continuous power supply along with provision for power Page 13 of 71 back up was there. The CCTV footages were submitted on weekly basis to the Division Forest Office for smooth monitoring as well as functioning of their Saw Mills. Thereby, the allegations so made by the petitioners are not correct and, as such, the writ petition filed by the petitioners in the nature of “personal interest litigation” should be dismissed with cost. 5. Mr. Abhishekh Dash, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties no.6, 7 and 8 vehemently contended that the allegations made by the petitioners, that the establishment and operation of the Saw Mills by opposite parties no.6 and 7 within 1 KM radial distance of Mancha Bandha Reserve Forest, 5 KM radial distance of Hatikote Reserve Forest and 10 KM radial distance of Similipal (National Park) is in violation of Section 4 (1) of the Odisha Saw Mills and Saw Pits (Control) Act, 1991; and that the delegation of control with respect to Saw Mills by the licensee-opposite parties no.6 and 7 in favour of opposite party no.8 is impermissible under the terms of Page 14 of 71 the license; and that there are reasons to believe that woods brought to the Saw Mills are illegal and unauthorized and, as such, the Mills are involved in wood laundering, have no legs to stand. It is contended that establishment of Saw Mills inside the identified industrial estate (Chancha Industrial Estate) is not violative of Section 4 (1) of the Odisha Saw Mills and Saw Pits (Control) Act, 1991, as those Saw Mills, which were closed down, were established again in obedience to the direction of the apex Court, referred to above, for rehabilitation of the Saw Mills in the State, and in pursuance of the amendment made to Section 4(1) of the Act by inserting third proviso thereto. It is further contended that there is no transfer or delegation of control over Saw Mills by the proprietors-opposite parties no.6 and 7 in favour of opposite party no.8. As such, the Saw Mills are not involved in any kind of illegal timber business, as is evident from their track record, and they have no criminal antecedent till date. Therefore, in absence of any Page 15 of 71
Decision
materials, the writ petition, which has been filed by way of public interest litigation by making bald allegations, is not maintainable. Consequentially, dismissal of the writ petition is sought for with heavy cost. 6. This Court heard Mr. S.S. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr. D.K. Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for opposite parties no.1 to 5; and Mr. Abhishekh Dash, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties no.6, 7 and 8 and perused the record. Since pleadings have been exchanged, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 7. To resolve the dispute, this Court framed the following issues: (i) Whether the public interest litigation is maintainable on the basis of the allegations made in the writ petition? Page 16 of 71 (ii) Whether the authorities are empowered to establish/rehabilitate the Saw Mills of opposite parties no.6 and 7 in the locations, where they are established in terms of the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder and in compliance of the direction given by the apex Court? (iii) Whether the opposite parties no.6 and 7 have transferred the control of their Saw Mills to opposite party no.8? and (iv) Whether the Saw Mills of opposite parties no.6 and 7 are involved in any kind of illegal timber business so as to direct for their closure? Issue No.(i) : 8. Now, it is to be seen whether the present writ petition filed in the guise of public interest litigation is for the betterment of the society at large or for benefiting any individual. 8.1. In Malik Bros v. Narendra Dadhich, (1999) 6 SCC 552, the apex Court held as follows:- Page 17 of 71 rights. interest litigation The direction “… a public is usually entertained by a Court for the purpose of redressing public injury enforcing public duty, protecting social rights and vindicating public interest. The real purpose of entertaining such application is the vindication of the rule of law, effect access to justice to the economically weaker class and meaningful realization of the fundamental and commands issued by the courts of law in a public interest are for the betterment of the society at large and not for benefiting any individual. But if the Court finds that in the garb of a public litigation actually an individual’s interest is sought to be carried out or protected, it would be the bounden-duty of the Court not to entertain such petitions as otherwise a very purpose of innovation of public interest litigation will be frustrated. It is in fact a litigation in which a person is not aggrieved personally but brings an action on behalf of the downtrodden mass for the redressal of their grievance.” interest In view of the law laid down by the apex Court, in our considered opinion, on Public Interest Litigation (PIL), redressal of public injury, enforcement of public duty, protection of social rights and vindication of public interest must be the parameters for entertaining a PIL. The Court has a bounden duty to see whether any legal injury is caused to a person or a cluster of persons or an indeterminate class of persons by way of infringement of Page 18 of 71 any constitutional or other legal rights while delving into a PIL. The existence of any public interest as well as bona fide are the other vital areas to come under the Court’s scrutiny. In absence of any legal injury or public interest or bona fide, a PIL is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. It is to be borne in mind that ultimately it is the rule of law that is to be vindicated. As such, there is a need for restrain on the part of the public interest litigants when they move Courts. The Courts should also be cautious and selective in accepting PIL as well. 8.2. Public Interest Litigation which has now come to occupy an important field in the administration of law should not be ‘publicity interest litigation’ or ‘private interest litigation’. If not properly regulated and abuse averted, it becomes also a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreck vengeance, as well. There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and not merely an adventure of knight errant or poke ones nose into for a probe. It cannot also be invoked Page 19 of 71 by a person or a body of persons to further his or their personal causes or satisfy his or their personal grudge and enmity. Courts of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction. A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of public interest litigation will alone have locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. 8.3. In Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal, 2003 (9) Scale 741, the apex Court held as follows: “Public Interest Litigation is a weapon which to be used with great care and has circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful the to see beautiful veil and public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armory of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. The attractive that behind Page 20 of 71 brand name of public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity oriented or founded on personal vendetta. Court must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of public, who approaches the Court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The Court must not allow its process for oblique to be abused consideration. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busybodies deserves to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.” Laying down certain conditions on which the Court has to satisfy itself it was observed: “The Court has to be satisfied about- (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prime facie correctness or nature of information given by him; the (c) the indefinite; information being not vague and The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike a balance between two conflicting interest; (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and Page 21 of 71 (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive action. In such case, however, the Court cannot afford to be liberal.” The apex Court, on the point of exercising restraint, held that it has to be very careful that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the executive and the legislature. The Court hardening its stand said:- “The court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busy-bodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of pro bono public, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect.” 8.4. In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (2006) 5 SCC 28, the apex Court, relying upon the judgments of S.P. Gupta v. President of India, AIR 1982 SC 149 : 1981 Supp. SCC 87, Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, AIR 1993 SC 892, after noticing that lakhs Page 22 of 71 of rupees had been spent by the petitioner to prosecute the case, held as under:- “it has been repeatedly held by the Court that none has a right to approach the Court as a public interest litigant and that Court must be careful to see that the member of the public who approaches the Court in public interest, is acting bona fide and not for any personal gain or private profit or political motivation or other oblique consideration. their command about …………….. while the Court has laid down a chain of notable decisions with all the emphasis at importance and significance of this newly developed doctrine of PIL, it has also hastened to sound a red alert and a note of severe warning that courts should not allow their process to be abused by a mere busybody, or a meddlesome interloper or wayfarer of officious interest or concern intervener without any except for personal gain or private profit or other oblique consideration.” 8.5. Undisputedly, the petitioners have approached this Court of equity invoking jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India. In Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 852, the apex Court held that who seeks equity must do equity. The legal maxim “Jure Naturae Aequum Page 23 of 71 Est Neminem cum Alterius Detrimento Et Injuria Fieri Locupletiorem”, means that it is a law of nature that one should not be enriched by the loss or injury to another. Similar view has also been taken in K.R. Srinivas v. R.M. Premchand, (1994) 6 SCC 620, where the apex Court held that when a person approaches a Court of Equity in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226/227 of the Constitution, he should approach the Court not only with clean hands but also with clean mind, clean heart and clean objective. In Noorduddin v. K.L. Anand (1995) 1 SCC 242, the apex Court held that Judicial process should not become an instrument of oppression or abuse of means in the process of the Court to subvert justice for the reason that the interest of justice and public interest coalesce. The Courts have to weigh the public interest vis-à-vis private interest while exercising their discretionary Page 24 of 71 powers. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions. Similar view has also been taken in Dr. Buddhi Kota Subbarao v. K. Parasaran, AIR 1996 SC 2687, and Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1997 SC 1236. 8.6. In Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P., (2013) 2 SCC 398, the apex Court laid down guidelines to the Court, in the matter of entertaining the PIL, to the following effect:- The obligation to approach the Court “(1) with clean hands is an absolute obligation. Quests (2) for personal gains haver become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood and misrepresent and suppress facts in the court proceedings. Materialism, opportunism and malicious intent have over- shadowed the old ethos of litigative values for small gains. (3) A litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands is not settled to any relief, interim or final. Page 25 of 71 (4) The Court must ensure that its process is not abused and in order to prevent abuse of the process the Court, it would be justified even in insisting on furnishing of security and in cases of serious abuse, the Court would duty bound to impose heavy costs. (5) Wherever a public interest is invoked, the Court must examine the petition carefully to ensure that there is genuine public interest involved. The stream of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants. (6) It is the bounden duty of the Court to ensure that dishonesty and any attempt to surpass the legal process must be effectively curbed and the Court must ensure that there is no wrongful, unauthorised or unjust gain to anyone as a result of abuse of the process of the Court. One way to curb this tendency is to impose realistic or punitive costs” . Similarly, in K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., (2008) 12 SCC 481, the apex Court held that no litigant can play ‘hide and seek’ with the Courts or adopt ‘pick and choose’. True facts ought to be disclosed as the Court knows law, but not facts. One, who does not come with candid facts and clean breast cannot hold a writ of the court with soiled hands. Suppression or concealment of material facts is impermissible to a Page 26 of 71 litigant or even as a technique of advocacy. In such cases, the Court is duty bound to discharge rule nisi and such applicant is required to be dealt with for contempt of court for abusing the process of the Court. 8.7. In State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, (2010) 3 SCC 402, the apex Court in paragraphs-143 and 181 of the judgment held as follows:- “143. Unfortunately, of late, it has been noticed that such an important jurisdiction which has been carefully carved out, created and nurtured with great care and caution by the courts, is being blatantly abused by filing some petitions with oblique motives. We think time has come when genuine and bona fide public interest litigation must be encouraged whereas litigation In our considered should be discouraged. opinion, we have to protect and preserve this important jurisdiction in the larger interest of the people of this country but we must take effective steps to prevent and cure its abuse on the basis of monetary and non-monetary directions by the courts. frivolous public interest 181. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, it has become imperative to issue the following directions: (1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb for extraneous considerations. the PIL filed Page 27 of 71 (2) Instead of every individual Judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this Court immediately thereafter. (3) The Courts should prima facie verify the petitioner before the credentials of entertaining a PIL. (4) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL. (5) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition. (6) The Courts should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions. (7) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind the public interest litigation. filing (8) The Courts should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting Page 28 of 71 similar novel methods to curb frivolous for petitions and extraneous considerations”. the petitions filed Similar view has also been taken by this Court in Chhabindra Mukhi v. State of Odisha, 122 (2016) CLT 609. 8.8. Taking into consideration the above principles of law laid down by the apex Court and applying the same to the present context, the contention raised by learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties, that the petitioners have filed “personal interest litigation” in the nature of “public interest litigation” to vindicate their grievance against opposite parties no.6, 7 and 8, is not tenable in the eye of law. But fact remains, the Saw Mills of opposite parties no.6 and 7, which have been rehabilitated by virtue of the direction given by the apex Court, are being managed by opposite party no.8. More so, Baripada City in the year 2023 was recorded as the hottest city and this has happened due to deforestation Page 29 of 71 affecting the environment greatly. Therefore, to protect and save the human lives and environment, if such a petition is filed, it cannot be said that it is a “personal interest litigation” and is liable to be dismissed. Rather, this is a public interest litigation, by which the petitioners otherwise seek to protect the environment, by bringing to the notice of the Court that such an irregularity has been caused, which is to be rectified by relocating the Saw Mills in conformity with the provisions of law. Thereby, issue no.(i) is answered in affirmative in favour of the petitioners. Issue No.(ii):- 9. Before delving into this issue, the provisions of Section 4 of the Odisha Saw Mills and Saw Pits (Control) Act, 1991, which are relevant for the purpose of the case, are to be referred to:- “4. Establishment and Operation of Saw Mill and Saw Pit—(1) On and after the appointed day, no person shall establish or operate a saw mill or saw pit except under Page 30 of 71 the authority and subject to the conditions of a license granted under this Act: Provided that no person shall establish or operate any saw mill or saw pit within a reserved forest, protected forest or any forest area or within ten kilometers from the boundary or any such forest or forest area. Provided further that the Government shall for reasons to be recorded in writing disallow a saw mill or saw pit other than those referred to in Clause (i) of Sub-section (2) established and operating prior to the appointed day within the area mentioned in the first proviso to continue such operation and may, In order to meet the needs of saw facilities for local population, allow a saw mill or saw pit referred to in Clause (i) of Sub- section (2), established and operating prior to the appointed day in such area, to continue such operation or may allow further establishment of saw mill or saw pit in such area either through the Department of Forest or through a State Public Sector Undertaking fully owned by it. ** that [Provided also the State Government may identify industrial estates within such area not exceeding two in one district and shall subject to compliance of the guidelines issued from time to time allow the Saw mills or Saw Pits for their establishment relocation and functioning in such Industrial estates. *1. Inserted vide O.A. 2 of 2007, Orissa Gazette Ext. No.273 dated 22.02.2007. **2.Inserted vide O.A. No.2 of 2011 Orissa Gazette Ext. No.208 dated 25.01.2011. Page 31 of 71 Explanation- For the purpose of this sub- section, the expression “industrial estate” shall have the same meaning assigned to it under clause (i) of Section 2 of the Orissa Development Industrial Corporation Act, 1980.] Infrastructure (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1): (i) a saw mill or saw pit, established by the Orissa Forest Development Corporation Limited or by any other agency of the Government prior to the appointed day, may continue to be operated by such Corporation agency; as the case may be, and in such a case, the Corporation or agency, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be a licensee for the purposes of this Act; (ii) a saw mill or saw pit other than one referred to in clause (i) and established prior to the appointed day, may continue to be operated, and shall be deemed to be a saw mill or saw pit, as the case may be, licensed under this Act; (a) for a period of three months from the appointed day; or (b) in an application made in accordance with Section 6 for a licence is pending on the expiry of the period specified in clause (a) till the disposal of such application under sub-section (2) of Section 7.” 9.1. Section 4(1) of the Act, 1991 puts a mandate that on and after the appointed day, no person shall Page 32 of 71 establish or operate a saw mill or saw pit except under the authority and subject to the conditions of a license granted under the Act. The first proviso attached to this Sub-section (1) of Section 4 also gives clarification that no person shall establish or operate any saw mill or saw pit within a reserved forest, protected forest or any forest area or within ten kilometers from the boundary of any such forest or forest area. By virtue of the provisions of Section 4 (1), the saw mills, established within the prohibited zone, as mentioned in the proviso, have stopped operating overnight by virtue of enactment of the Act. 9.2. Purpose of the proviso attached to the main provision is very clear that if the enacting portion of the Section is not clear, a proviso appended to it may give an indication as to its true meaning. 9.3. In West Derby Union v. Metropolitan Life Assurance Society, 1897 A.C. 647, Lord Herschell stated as under:- Page 33 of 71 “Of course a proviso may be used to guide you in the selection of one or other of two possible constructions of the words to be found in the enactment, and show when there is doubt about its scope, when it may reasonably admit of doubt as to having this scope or that, which is the proper view to take of it.” Lord Watson in the same case stated as under:- “There is no doubt that where the main provision is clear, its effect cannot be cut down by the proviso. But where it is not clear, the proviso, which cannot be to be a suplusage, can presumed properly be looked into to ascertain the meaning and scope of the main provision.” The aforesaid view has also been referred to in Jennings v. Kelly, 1940 A.C. 2006 : (1939) 4 All E.R. 464. 9.4. In Hindustan Ideal Insurance Co. v. Life Insurance Corporation, AIR 1963 SC 1083 : (1963) 2 SCR 56, the apex Court held that there is no doubt that where the main provision is clear, its effect cannot be cut down by the proviso, but where it is not clear, the proviso, which cannot be presumed to be a surplusage, can Page 34 of 71 properly be looked into to ascertain the meaning and scope of the main provision. 9.5. The words of a proviso must be given their full and natural meaning and cannot be restricted by an artificial construction unless the intention of the legislature is clearly expressed to show that they were intended to apply only to a limited number of cases. 9.6. In Devadsan T. v. Union of India, (1964) 4 SCR 680 : AIR 1964 SC 179, the apex Court held that a proviso should receive a strict construction. It cannot be so interpreted as to nullify or destroy the main provision. It is not open to add words to a proviso with a view to enlarge the scope of the provision. It must be restricted to the scope reasonably conveyed by the words used therein. The rule is applied with such strictness that it is not permissible even to draw any implication from the specification of any particular case in a proviso by the application of the maxim expression unius est exclusion Page 35 of 71 alterius so as to affect the interpretation of the enacting clause. A proviso unlike an exception should be taken in connection with the general language of the previous portion of the clause to which it is attached. 9.7. In view of the aforementioned interpretation attached to the meaning of the proviso, if Section 4 (1) of the Act is read as a whole, it would be evident that the first proviso creates a bar to establish or operate any saw mill or saw pit within a reserved forest, protected forest or any forest area or within ten kelometres from the boundary of any such forest or forest area. The issue relating to distance criteria for establishment of saw mills and saw pits contained in the first proviso, which is clarified to be radial distance (as crow flies), has been considered by this Court in the case of Maa Mangala Saw Mill v. State of Orissa, OJC No.11164 of 1996 decided on 08.11.1996. Page 36 of 71 9.8. In Laxminarayan Saw Mill v. State of Orissa and others, AIR 1995 ORISSA 114 : 79 (1995) CLT 189 (FB), this Court, taking into consideration Section 4 (1), held that Section 4 (1) imposes an absolute bar which falls under the criteria of reasonable restriction and has been introduced for the welfare of the general public and the whole section has to be read completely and not in isolation. Section 4 (1) is the spirit of the Act and if allowed to be circumvented, the whole act loses its force. Paragraphs 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, 16, 18 and 21 of the said judgment, being relevant, are extracted hereunder:- “7. The language employed in the proviso is simply clear. It creates a total ban against establishing a new saw mill/pit or operating the existing saw mill/ pit in the areas specified which can be described as, prohibited zone. Sub-section (1) of Section 4 mandates against establishing or operating a saw mill/pit except under the authority and subject to the conditions of a licence granted under the Act. In view of Section 24, all old licences come to an end. Clause (i) of sub-section (2) of Section 4 carves out an exception in respect of existing saw mill/ pit established by the Orissa Forest Development Corporation Limited or by any other agency of the Government prior to the Page 37 of 71 appointed day. As a result, that saw mill/pit, even though within the prohibited zone, can continue to operate. Exception is only about existing saw mill/ pit, and even that class of operator cannot establish a new saw mill/ pit within the prohibited area. Clause (ii) (a) of Section 4(2) provides for continuation of the existing saw mill/pit as a deemed licensee under the Act for a period of three months from the appointed day. This was clearly necessary as a transitory measure to avoid hardship to the operator and also to gain time to apply fresh mind by the authorities. Section 6(2) provides for an application to be made at least one month before the expiry of the period of three months from the appointed day. Clause (ii)(b) of Section 4(2) provides that if such application is pending, the period of deemed licence shall be extended till the disposal of the application under for Section 7(2). Section 7(2) provides disposal of the application under Section 6(1) within a period of three months from the date of its receipt. 8. Before the Act was brought into force, the saw mill/pit belonged to two categories - one established beyond the prohibited zone and the the other established within prohibited zone. The former did not require any licence, but the latter did. Section 4 created two classes of saw mills/pits, one situated within the prohibited zone and the other beyond that zone, Former class was banned and the latter was regulated. Thus, under the Act, even those saw mills/pits which did not require licence were brought in the net of the licensing provision. A for all transitory provision was made Page 38 of 71 varieties of saw mills/pits for a period of three months in the first instance and thereafter till the disposal of the application for licence under Section 6 in accordance with Section 7(2). The assumption that clause (ii)(b) of Section 4(2) applies even to the mills/pits situated within the newly created prohibited zone appears to be erroneous. It will have to be borne in mind that the non-obstante clause contained in sub-section (2) was meant not only to apply to the proviso to Section 4(1) but also to the substantive provision. Clause (ii)(b) of Section 4(2) was not meant for mills which are undisputedly in the prohibited area. One of the points to be considered while granting licence is whether or not the saw mill/pit is situated within the prohibited zone. On that question, there may be a dispute and if there is a dispute the matter to be adjudicated upon. Such has to be contingency was also required provided for. Under the circumstances, there is no scope for an interpretation that Section 4(2)(ii)(b) provides for a discretion in the officer to grant or refuse a licence to a saw mill/pit even within a prohibited zone. A discretion to grant or refuse licence in accordance with the law very much exists, but not in respect of cases governed by total ban. If discretion even in cases covered by the proviso is read to exist, the proviso is rendered otiose. Normally, interpretation leading to such result has to be avoided. Moreover, the provision as a whole will have to be read together and no part of it can be read in isolation. xxx xxx xxx Page 39 of 71 interpretation 10. The language employed in the proviso to Section 4(1) is plain and clear. It is capable of only one interpretation. It also is quite in consonance with the very object of the new Act. In this context, taking aid of any other principle of is unnecessary. Section 4 will have to be read as a whole and each part thereof will have to be reconciled to the other. Hence clause (ii)(b) to sub-section (2) or any other clause cannot be read in isolation. Even if the language of the statute in its ordinary meaning and grammatical construction leads to a manifest contradiction of the apparent purpose of the enactment or to absurdity intended, construction may be put upon it which modifies the meaning of the word and even the structure of the sentence. All this is permissible only when two constructions are reasonably possible and not when only one construction is possible. In that case, the opinion of the Court, howsoever strong, must yield to the language and it is Court's duty to give effect to the inevitable result and leave it to the legislature to amend or alter the law. presumably not xxx xxx xxx 12. The basic approach to the interpretation of a statute has' been pithily put in the case of Utkal Contractors and Joinery Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, AIR 1987 SC 1454 thus (para 9):- "...... .A statute is best understood if we know the reason for it. The reason for a statute is the safest interpretation. The guide to its Page 40 of 71 for into and reports the Bill Parliament the reason is presented words of a statute take their colour from the reason for it. How do we discover the reason for a statute? There are external and internal aids. The external aids are Statement of Objects and Reasons to when of the Parliament, Committees which preceded the reports Bill of the Committees. Parliamentary the Occasional excursions debates are of permitted. Internal aids are the preamble, the scheme and the the Act. Having provisions of discovered the statute and so having set the sail to the wind, the interpreter may proceed ahead. No provision in the statute and no word of the statute isolation. may be construed Every provision and every word must be looked at generally before any provision or word is attempted to be construed. The setting and the pattern are important. It is again important to remember that its Parliament does not waste breath unnecessarily. Just as Parliament is not expected to use unnecessary expressions. Parliament is also not expected to express itself unnecessarily. Even as Parliament does not use any word without meaning something, Parliament does not legislate where no legislation is called for. Parliament cannot be assumed to legislate for the sake of legislation; in Page 41 of 71 nor can it be assumed to make pointless legislation." xxx xxx xxx 15. It is true that non-obstante clause is usually used to indicate the overriding effect, but it is not the rule of thumb. Sometimes, proviso can be treated as a substantive provision and a non-obstante clause as another provision. But assuming for a moment that Sub-section (2) has an overriding effect, is on the whole sub- section (I) and not merely on the proviso. Moreover, the overriding effect can be only to the extent of inconsistency and cannot travel beyond that limit. We are unable to notice any such inconsistency that would obliterate the substantive provision of total ban designedly created by the proviso to Section 4(1). right 16. This takes us to the question No. 2. Fundamental to practise any profession or to carry on as occupation, trade or business is specified under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. But this right is subject to limitations provided for in Sub- article (6), which permits the State to make a law imposing, in the interest of general public, Reasonable the exercise of that right. The key words are "reasonable restrictions" and "in the interest of general public". What is reasonable restriction and what is in the interest of general public cannot be put in any strait jacket formula. All depends upon the object of the Act and its scheme. But the very words "reasonable restrictions" connote that they should not be arbitrary or of an restrictions on Page 42 of 71 excessive nature beyond what is required in the interest of public. Though there is a presumption in favour of constitutionality of a statute, determination of reasonableness by legislature is not conclusive. It is subject to judicial review. These are the broad features and touchstones on the basis of which the validity of an enactment has to be tested. Considering the object sought to be achieved and the legislative background of the Act, it cannot be said that the total prohibition of saw mill/pit in the prohibited zone is not a reasonable restriction and is not in public interest. On the face of it, it is in public interest. No law can claim to be perfect for all times to come. Passage of time, new experiences etc. necessitate changes. The extent of the changes depends upon many factors. Forest is a national wealth. It is being denuded by illegal cutting. Considering the vast area involved and their situation in the far off places from the habitat area, it is becoming increasingly difficult to control the illegal activities. Earlier after experiemnt of imposing condition of licence within 80 Kms. did not serve the purpose. More drastic measure to achieve the same result was thought of. The saw mills/pits in or around the forest and forest area can be and has been the recipients of the illegal forest produce. They have great potentiality of destroying the evidence of unauthorised denuding of the forest. Physical control, though possible theoretically is not always practicable. If in this context a total ban has been put on the establishment and operation of the saw mills/pits within the forest and a radius of 10 . Kms. therefrom, there is no legal justification to make a Page 43 of 71 it cannot be said grievance. There has to be a balance between an individual and public interest, and in case of conflict, individual interest must yield to public interest. In the whole this context, restrictions, which is obviously in general public or interest, is essentially excessive. The measure is neither regulatory unguided, nor discriminatory. is unreasonable in nature and unreasonable, that nor xxx xxx xxx 18. It was substituted that the right to include the right to regulate does not destroy. The business of saw mill and raw pit has not been completely destroyed. Beyond the prohibited zone, the business can be carried on. There is no right to carry on business at a particular spot. xxx xxx xxx of 21. Next submissions is that permitting saw mills/pits the continuation established only by the Orissa Forest Development Corporation or other agencies of the Government is discriminatory. Now, private persons on one hand and Government or public bodies on the other belong two distinct classes. Giving special facilities to the Government, its agents and statutory corporations has been recognised as valid and reasonable. In this case, classification has clear nexus to the object. Hence, the provisions cannot be faulted even on that ground.” to Page 44 of 71 9.9. In Saraswati Saw Mills (supra), this Court held that proviso to Section 4 (1) of the Act is not ultra vires and, thereby, is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 9.10. In Sushila Saw Mill (supra), the apex Court held that Article 19(1)(g) and 301 of the Constitution of India is subjected to statutory regulation and Section 4 (1) puts a total embargo on the right to carry out saw mill operation within the prohibitory zone. The preservation of forest is a matter of great public interest and demanded for the total ban by legislation via the Act. The size and contiguity of the district does not matter, if all the area of the district falls under the prohibitory zone then no saw mill be permitted to function in the said district and it does not affect Articles 14 and 301 of the Constitution. 9.11. In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (supra), the apex Court issued detailed directions for the sustainable use of forests and created its own monitoring Page 45 of 71 and implementation system through regional and State level communities, regulating the felling, use and movement of timber across the country in hope of preserving the nation’s forest. The apex Court examined in detail all the aspects of the National Forest Policy, the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, which was enacted with a view to check further deforestation. It emphasized that the word “forest” must be understood according to its dictionary meaning of the term irrespective of the nature of ownership and classification thereof. According to this new broader definition, any forest thus defined, regardless of ownership, would be subject to Section 2 of the Act. Under new interpretation of forest land under Section 2 of the Act, States could no longer de-reserve protected forests for commercial or industrial (non-forestry) use without permission. 9.12. A “Forest” having not been defined, the meaning attached to forest has been considered by Page 46 of 71 various judgment of the apex Court, and some of which has been taken up for adjudication of the present case. 9.13. In T.N. Godavarman v. Union of India, AIR 1977 SC 1228, the apex Court, while considering Section 1 of Forest Conservation Act, held that the word “forest” covers all statutory recognized forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose of Sec.2(i) of the Forest Conservation Act. 9.14. In Bhavani Tea and Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (1991) 2 SCC 463, the apex Court held that forest means a parcel of land on which trees have been grown. Similar view has also been taken by the apex Court in State of Kerala v. Pullangode Rubber and Proudce Co. Ltd. (1999) 6 SCC 99. 9.15. In Indian Airlines Ltd. v. Samaresh Bhownick, (1999) 6 SCC 99, the apex Court held that meaning of forest must be understood according to its dictionary meaning. It would, thus, appear that the Page 47 of 71 rubber plantation containing rubber trees, would be regarded as a private forest the destruction of which was sought to be prohibited by the 1949 Act. 9.16. In M.C. Meheta v. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 118 : AIR 2004 SC 4016, while considering Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the apex Court held that the term ‘forest’ is to be understood in the dictionary sense and also that any area regarded as a forest in government accords, irrespective of ownership, would be a forest. 9.17. In B.L. Wadhera v. Union of India, (2002) 9 SCC 108 : AIR 2002 SC 1913, the apex Court held as follows: that “Forest has not been defined under the Act but the Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 267 has held the word “forest” must be understood according to its dictionary meaning. It would cover all statutorily recognized forests whether designatred as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purposes of Section 2(i) of the Forest Conservation Act. The term “forest land” occurring in Section 2 will include not only the forest as understood in the dictionary sense but the also any area regarded as forest in Page 48 of 71 government record irrespective of the ownership. The gifting of land, in the instate case, cannot in any way, be termed to be for a forest purpose as postulated by Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act.” 9.18. In view of the meaning attached to the word ‘forest’, it would cover all statutorily recognized forests whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purposes of Section 2(i) of the Forest Conservation Act. Therefore, it is the pivotal duty and responsibility of the State to protect the same through their forest officials and for growing consciousness among the citizens. 9.19. Therefore, to save the forest, by enacting the provisions contained in Section 4 (1) of the Act along with the proviso, there is a full restriction with regard to operation of the Saw Mills in the State of Odisha within prohibited zone of 10 KM radial distance from the preserved forest. The aforesaid view of the Court, in the case of T.N. Godavarman (supra), has been implemented Page 49 of 71 by the State Government, vide order dated 10.07.2009, stating that there should be no Saw Mills within 10 kms radial distance from the boundary of the forest area. The relevant extracts of the orders passed by the apex Court in T.N. Godavarman (supra) are quoted hereunder:- Order dated 10.07.2009 : “I.A. No.941 IN I.A. No. 754-755 WITH I.ANo.777, 1131-1133, 1138-1146, 1148, 1184, 1272, 1361, 1579-1580 in W.P.(C) No. 202/1995 with W.P.(C) No. 356 /2007. These matters relate to saw mills in the State of Orissa. This Court had earlier directed that there should be no saw mills within 10kilometers from the boundary of the forest area. Many of the saw mills in the State of Orissa were closed down. The applicants in I.A. Nos. 1579 and 1580 also closed down their saw mills. We are told that some of the saw mills had obtained interim orders from the High Court but as those are contrary to the direction given by this Court, all those saw mills must also be closed down immediately. We are told that the Orissa Forest Corporation has its own saw mills and these mills are given on lease to private parties. Such practices shall be stopped forthwith. The State of Orissa to file a fresh affidavit to this effect within a period of four weeks. The State shall arrange to have an industrial estate and take urgent steps to Page 50 of 71 this effect and shall also take steps to see that there shall be appropriate amendment to the Saw Mills Rules of 1991. It shall file an affidavit to this effect.” “I.A. No.941 IN I.A. No. 754-755 WITH I.ANo.777, 1131-1133, 1138-1146, 1148, 1184, 1272, 1361, 1579-1580 in W.P.(C) No. 202/1995 with W.P.(C) No. 356 /2007. After this Court passed Order dated 10.07.2009 regarding closing of the mills in the State of Orissa, a large number of saw mills were closed. The State is of the view that for the saw mills were closed. The State is of the view that for the saw mills appropriate location could not be found as many of the areas are covered by the definition of forest. Now the State has proposed and want to set-up Industrial Estate (s) for establishment of saw mills for which they require amendment of the Orissa Saw Mills and Saw Pits (Control) Act, 1991. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the State of Orissa, we direct that urgent steps may be taken in this direction at the earliest. Post on 20.11.2009.” 9.20. The above direction given by the apex Court resulted in closing down of majority of Saw Mills in the State of Odisha. Consequentially, the affected Saw Mill owners of the State approached the apex Court by filing Page 51 of 71 various interim applications seeking clarifications/ modifications/relaxation of the aforesaid directions. Evaluating the contentions raised, the apex Court, vide order dated 16.08.2010, directed for rehabilitation of those closed down Saw Mills and thereby directed the State of Odisha to make necessary arrangements to have industrial estates and take appropriate steps in that regard, if necessary, by making amendments to the provisions of the Saw Mills Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The relevant extract of the order dated 16.08.2010 passed by the apex Court is quoted below:- “ORISSA SAW MILL MATTERS: We have learned counsel for the parties as well as Mr. P.S. Narasimha, learned Amicus Curiae. These applications relate to the saw mills in the State of Orissa. This Court has earlier directed that no saw mills should be established within a radius of 10 kms. from the boundary of the forest area. Pursuant to the directions of the Court many of the saw mills in the State of Orissa were closed down. At the same time, this Court having realised that those saw mills which were closed down are required to be rehabilitated, passed the orders on 10.7.2009 directing the State of Page 52 of 71 to make Orissa necessary arrangements to have industrial estates and take appropriate steps in that regard, if necessary, by making amendments to the provisions of Orissa Saw Mills and Saw Pit (Control) Act, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) and the rules framed thereunder. and The Court vide its order dated 10.7.2009 accordingly, directed the State of Orissa to take urgent steps in that appropriate regard amendments to the said provisions of the Act and the Rules made there under so that the eligible amongst the closed saw mills could be appropriately rehabilitated in due course. ensure the State By another order dated 7.5.2010 based on the instructions submitted before the Court, a direction was issued requiring take appropriate to decision concerning amendments to the provisions of the said Act and Rules within a period of six weeks there from. already taken appropriate decision in the matter and complied with the directions of this Court. The necessary amendments to the provisions of the Act are required to be made by the Legislature. In it would be circumstances, appropriate to direct the State of Orissa to directions of this Court dated 10.7.2009 and 7.5.2010 and accordingly make and carry the out necessary amendments to the provisions of the Act and Rules framed there under in order to give rehabilitation plan. The industrial estates have to be indentified so that these applicants are appropriately implement effect the Page 53 of 71 rehabilitated in terms of the directions issued by this Court from time to time. The exercise in this regard shall be completed within a period of six months from today. In such view of the matter, no adjudication is required in these applications and they are accordingly disposed of.” 9.21. Now, in the name of rehabilitation, closed Saw Mills are being permitted to be opened at industrial estate area. The word “rehabilitation”, as has been defined in Volabulary.com, reads thus:- “Rehabilitation is the act of restoring something like the rehabilitation of the forest that had once been cleared for use as an amusement park. its original state, to The noun rehabilitation comes from the Latin prefix re-, meaning “again” and habitare, meaning “make fit.” When something falls in to disrepair and needs to be restored to a better condition, it needs rehabilitation.” Primary Meanings of rehabilitation 1.n. the treatment of physical disabilities and electrotherapy and by massage exercises. 2.n. the restoration of someone to a useful place in 3.n. the conversion of wasteland into land suitable for or cultivation.” habitation society. use of Page 54 of 71 9.22. In Collector of 24 Parganas v. Lalit Mohan