1 2025:CGHC:16770 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2016 of 2022 1 - Nikhilesh Tiwari S/o Late Shri Saligram Tiwari Aged About 46 Years Proprietor And Nominee Of Kanti Rice And Band Saw Mill, Village Bhothidih, Tahsil Magarlod, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Union of India Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Environment Forest And Climate Change, New Delhi., District : New Delhi, Delhi 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Forest And Climate Change, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest Chhattisgarh, Aranya Bhawan Sector-19, North Block, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - State Level Committee, Chhattisgarh Under Wood Based Industries Guidelines Through Its Member Secretary, Aranya Bhawan, Sector-19, North Block, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Divisional Forest Officer-Cum-Licensing Authority Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.05.22 19:44:57 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Shri Jitendra Nath Nande, Advocate For State : Shri Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 09/04/2025 1. The reliefs claimed in this petition are as under: “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record concerning to the petitioner's case from the possession of the respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in appropriate nature by directing the Respondents to quash the order passed by the Respondent No. 05 dated 16/03/2022 (ANNEXURE-P/1), in the interest of justice. 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in appropriate nature quashing clause 7 (ii) of the impugned Guidelines, 2016 dated 11-11-2016 as amended in 2017 issued by the Respondent No. 01(ANNEXURE-P/3) and consequential notification bearing no. F.19-51/व/10- 2/2005 (Part) dated 13-08-2021 (ANNEXURE-P/2). 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a appropriate writ/ directions to the respondent authorities to frame proper rehabilitation policy for the saw mills who are affected by the orders of the respondent authorities in pursuant to the notification dated 13-08- 2021. 3 10.5 Any other relief/relief's which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 2. Facts of the case, as emerge from the writ petition, are that the petitioner is a saw mill owner and he has a valid licence for establishing and running the saw mill and the licence to operate saw mill is still valid. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India passed in WPC No.202/95 has been passing orders/ instructions/ guidelines from time to time in connection with protection and conservation of environment and forests throughout the country. Two such orders were passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 12.12.1996 and 05.10.2015. Based on the instructions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in aforesaid two orders, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change issued a detailed requisition in the form of guidelines dealing with the wood based industries (Establishment and Regulation) dated 11.11.2016 which is also under challenged. 3. Pursuant to the guidelines framed by the Central Government and also taking into consideration the provisions of Chhattisgarh Kashth Chiran (Viniyam) Adhiniyam, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as “1984 Adhiniyam”), particularly, Section 5, the State Government vide its notification dated 13.08.2021 have declared the areas falling within ten kilometers of aerial distance from the boundary of nearest 4 notified forests or protected area which is also under challenge in the present writ petition. 4. Based upon the notification dated 13.08.2021 the impugned order was passed whereby the respondent No.5 has taken a decision for staying the renewal of license for establishment or operating of saw mills and also ordered for closing of the existing saw mills for a period from 01.01.2022 to 22.08.2024 which are located/situated at an aerial distance of less than 10 kilometers from the boundary of nearest notified forests. This is how the present petition has been filed before this Court. 5. Shri Jitendra Nath Nande, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the said order of closer of the petitioner’s establishment firstly is in violation of principle of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before the impugned order was passed. He further submits that in compliance of the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T. N. Godavarman (supra), State Level Committee (SLC) has been constituted and the said Committee has recommended for establishment and operation of saw mills in factual grounds is to be beyond 4 kilometers aerial distance whereas the present notification published by the State Government is contrary to the recommendation made by the State Level Committee. The further contention of the petitioner is that the State could have not gone contrary to the recommendation made by the 5 SLC and the same would also amount to violating the guidelines and instructions made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T. N. Godavarman (supra). He further submits that once the SLC has been established, the State Government is denuded of its power so far as lying down the guidelines in respect of establishment and running of wood based industries which includes saw mills are concerned. It was also the contention of the petitioner that the decision of taking the distance by aerial measurement is not justifiable. It was further contended that on earlier occasion show cause notices were issued, some questions were put by petitioners in a bunch of petitions and the bunch of petitions were disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. In those writ petitions, the petitioners were permitted to submit reply to the show cause notices and the respondents authorities were expected to give opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and take decision keeping in view the law and the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also keeping in view the minutes of 16th meeting of SLC held on 22.04.2019 and meanwhile interim protection was also granted in favour of the petitioners therein. He further submits that the observations and directions of the High Court in its order dated 03.12.2021 passed in WPC No. 4950/2021 were not followed by the respondents. He further submits that this Court on 13.01.2022 and on other various dates, protected the petitioners by strength of interim orders, the petitioners are still operating their saw mills. He further submits that the 6 impugned notification was published, currency of notification was for a period of 3 years from the date of notification, i.e., 13.08.2021. Since the period of 3 years has already been over, the notification loses its significance and in light of above, the consequential order is also liable to be set aside. He further submits that another SLC meeting was convened which is filed in WPC No.4986/2023 , the saw mills which were established prior to 12.12.1996, the restricted area would be of 4 kilometers and for other establishments, the restricted area is for ten kilometers from aerial root from the notified forest boundary. He submits that the decision of SLC has been forwarded to the respondent/Union of India, but, still the Union of India has not taken decision on such State SLC. He though submits that there is all likelihood that after expiry of notification dated 13.08.2021, the State may again issue fresh notification which would affect the rights of the petitioner and if such notification is published, the same would be contrary to the decision of SLC taken in the year 2019 and thereafter in the year 2022. Therefore, in all fairness, the Union of India should take decision on the recommendation/decision made by the SLC in the year 2022 and for the present, the writ petition may be disposed of directing the respondent/Union of India to take decision on it and till then the interim order passed by this Court may continue to operate. He further submits that if any adverse decision is taken by the Union of India or any new notification is published by the State Government, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the 7 same and further prays that before passing any adverse order against the petitioner by State Government, an opportunity of hearing may be granted to him. 6. Per contra, Shri Shreyansh Mehta, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State submits that in fact the petition has become infructuous. The impugned notification dated 13.08.2021 has already come to an end and as such the petition has become infructuous. Therefore, the writ petition may be disposed of. 7. Having thus considered the submissions at the bar and on perusal of the record, this Court finds that the basic challenge is to the notification dated 13.08.2021 and its consequential order dated 29.12.2021. Since the notification was issued only for a period of 3 years, it automatically came to an end. Consequently, the consequential order dated 29.12.2021 cannot be acted upon. 8. A compliance report of the order dated 17.01.2024 passed by this Court is placed on record which is annexed with a letter/recommendation dated 13.09.2022 issued from the office of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Chhattisgarh addressed to Director General of Forest and Special Secretary, Ministry of Environmental, Forest and Climate Change. It would be apt to quote certain paragraphs of this recommendation which are as under: 8 “छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य में लगभग 190 आरामिमलें अधिसूधित वनों एवं संरधित ेत्रों की सीमा से 10 मिक-मी- की हवाई दूरी की सीमा में आने के कारण प्रधितबंधित ेत्र में आ गई है। उपरोक्त आरामशीनों का संालन बंद होने से उक्त परिरवारों के जीवन यापन पर मिवपरीत प्रभाव की स्थि23धित उत्पन्न हो गई है- ऐसे 125 आरामशीन मालिलको द्वारा माननीय उच्च न्यायालय मिबलासपुर में रिरट याधिकाएँ प्र2तुत की गई हैं] जो मिवाराीन है। यह उल्लेखनीय है मिक, उपरोक्त आरामशीनें माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय के आदेश मिदनांक 12-12-1996 के पूवA से ही 23ामिपत एवं संालिलत हैं त3ा ये आरामशीनें माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय के आदेश मिदनांक 12-12-1996 के पालन में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय को प्र2तुत सूी में भी शामिमल है। काष्ठ आारिरत उद्योग (23ापना एवं मिवमिनयमन) मिदशा&मिनदFश 2016 (य3ा संशोधित 12017) के मिGयान्वयन में वन ेत्रों की नवीन अधिसूनाओं से उत्पन्न होने वाली कमिIनाईयों के संबं में भी गहन मिवार की आवश्यकता है। यह मिवारणीय है मिक वन (संरण) अधिमिनयम 1980 के तहत व्यपवतAन के प्रकरणों में गैर वन भूमिम पर मिकये जाने वाले धितपूर्तित वृारोपण को भारतीय दन अधिमिनयम 1927 की ारा 4(1) अ3वा ारा 29 के तहत वनभूमिम के रूप में अधिसूधित मिकया जाना अमिनवायA है। धितपूर्तित वृारोपण एक सतत गधितमिवी है] ऐसी स्थि23धित में आरामशीनों हेतु प्रधितबंधित ेत्र में लगातार वृधिO होती रहेगी एवं पूवA से ल रही आरामशीनों का संालन कमिIन हो जायेगा। उक्त सम2या का 9 मिनदान मिकया जाना आवश्यक है। छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य में मिवगत वर्षोंQ में 97 वन भूमिम व्यपवतAन के प्रकरणों में गैर वन भूमिम पर 84 23ानों पर मिकये गये धितपूर्तित वृारोपणों को भारतीय वन अधिमिनयम 1927 की ारा 4¼1½ अ3वा ारा 29 के तहत वनभूमिम के रूप में अधिसूधित मिकया गया है] इनमें से कई 23ल 1 हेक्टेयर तक की छोटे साइज के भी है। वतAमान में भी राज2व मिवभाग से प्राप्त अधितरिरक्त भूमिम को वनभूमिम के रूप में अधिसूधित करने हेतु प्रमिGया ल रही है। उपरोक्त परिरस्थि23धितयों में आरामशीन संालकों में असमंजस की स्थि23धित है त3ा वे असुरधित महसूस कर रहे हैं। अतः ऐसी स्थि23धित में पूवA से 23ामिपत एवं कायAरत आरामशीनों को वतAमान 23ल पर संालिलत करते रहने की अनुमधित मिदये जाने हेतु छत्तीसगढ़ मिटम्बर व्यापारी संघ द्वारा मिनरंतर अभ्यावेदन मिदये जा रहे हैं। अतः वतAमान में कायAरत आरामशीनें जो मिदनांक 12-12-1996 के पूवA से 23ामिपत है एवं माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय के आदेश मिदनांक 12-12- 1996 के पालन में प्र2तुत सूी में शामिमल है] उन्हें संालन की अनुमधित मिदया जाना न्यायोधित होगा। माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय के आदेश मिदनांक 12-12-1996 के पश्चात से छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य में मिकसी नये आरामशीन की 2वीकृ धित नहीं दी गई है। भमिवष्य में यमिद नये आरा मशीन की 2वीकृ धित दी जाती है या 23ामिपत आरामशीनों का 23ल परिरवतAन मिकया जाता है तो वह 10 मिक-मी- की हवाई दूरी से अधिक दूरी पर ही मिकया जायेगा।” 10 9. Learned State counsel submits that the State Government has already recommended and they will abide by the recommendation. The recommendation of the SLC as well as the letter dated 13.09.2022 is pending consideration before the Union of India. It is expected that the Union of India would expedite the process of taking decisions on the SLC recommendation as well as the letter dated 13.09.2022. At this stage, it is expected that the State would adhere to the recommendation made by the SLC. 10. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of. If any further cause of action survives or any adverse order is passed against the petitioner, he shall be at liberty to approach this Court again. If any application for renewal of the licence of saw mill is made by the petitioner, the same shall be considered by the respondents authorities in accordance with law. 11. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is finally concluded. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh