1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.499 OF 2004 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.499 OF 2004 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.499 OF 2004 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO.7650 OF 2003 WRIT PETITION NO.7650 OF 2003 WRIT PETITION NO.7650 OF 2003 M/s.A.S.Wood Industries ...Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents ----- Mrs.S.V.Sonawane for Petitioners Mr. Nargolkar, A.G.P. for Respondents CORAM: H.L.GOKHALE & CORAM: H.L.GOKHALE & CORAM: H.L.GOKHALE & SMT.R.S.DALVI,JJ. SMT.R.S.DALVI,JJ. SMT.R.S.DALVI,JJ. DATED: 12TH AUGUST, 2005 DATED: 12TH AUGUST, 2005 DATED: 12TH AUGUST, 2005 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Mrs.Sonawane in support of Civil 1. Heard Mrs.Sonawane in support of Civil 1. Heard Mrs.Sonawane in support of Civil Application. Mr.Nargolkar appears for Respondents. Application. Mr.Nargolkar appears for Respondents. Application. Mr.Nargolkar appears for Respondents. 2. Civil Application prays for an interim order 2. Civil Application prays for an interim order 2. Civil Application prays for an interim order that the Petitioner be permitted to run the saw mill that the Petitioner be permitted to run the saw mill that the Petitioner be permitted to run the saw mill during the pendency and disposal of the Petition. As during the pendency and disposal of the Petition. As during the pendency and disposal of the Petition. As far as the main Petition is concerned Respondents have far as the main Petition is concerned Respondents have far as the main Petition is concerned Respondents have filed the reply, that the concerned saw mill is within filed the reply, that the concerned saw mill is within filed the reply, that the concerned saw mill is within 10 Kms. from Sanjay Gandhi National Park. Therefore, 10 Kms. from Sanjay Gandhi National Park. Therefore, 10 Kms. from Sanjay Gandhi National Park. Therefore, under the relevant rules the saw mill cannot be under the relevant rules the saw mill cannot be under the relevant rules the saw mill cannot be permitted to be operated. permitted to be operated. permitted to be operated. 3. Mrs.Sonawane disputes that the mill is 10 3. Mrs.Sonawane disputes that the mill is 10 3. Mrs.Sonawane disputes that the mill is 10 Kms.from Sanjay Gandhi National Park. However unless Kms.from Sanjay Gandhi National Park. However unless Kms.from Sanjay Gandhi National Park. However unless the Petitioner produces any such documents supported the Petitioner produces any such documents supported the Petitioner produces any such documents supported by Architects report it is not possible for us to by Architects report it is not possible for us to by Architects report it is not possible for us to dispute the statement made by Respondents on oath. dispute the statement made by Respondents on oath. dispute the statement made by Respondents on oath. 4. Thereafter, the submission of Mrs. Sonawane 4. Thereafter, the submission of Mrs. Sonawane 4. Thereafter, the submission of Mrs. Sonawane 2 is that under the Government’s decision dated 20th is that under the Government’s decision dated 20th is that under the Government’s decision dated 20th March, 2003 those mills which were given licence prior March, 2003 those mills which were given licence prior March, 2003 those mills which were given licence prior to 16th July 1981 are permitted to operate. She to 16th July 1981 are permitted to operate. She to 16th July 1981 are permitted to operate. She states that although the Petitioner was given licence states that although the Petitioner was given licence states that although the Petitioner was given licence in the year 1989 in fact the mill was functioning from in the year 1989 in fact the mill was functioning from in the year 1989 in fact the mill was functioning from 1979 and licence fee is taken from the Petitioner from 1979 and licence fee is taken from the Petitioner from 1979 and licence fee is taken from the Petitioner from 1979. In our understanding the collection of fee is 1979. In our understanding the collection of fee is 1979. In our understanding the collection of fee is only on account of the actual running of the mill by only on account of the actual running of the mill by only on account of the actual running of the mill by the Petitioner, that cannot mean that the licence was the Petitioner, that cannot mean that the licence was the Petitioner, that cannot mean that the licence was given prior to 1981. The payment though meant for the given prior to 1981. The payment though meant for the given prior to 1981. The payment though meant for the year 1979 onwards, is in fact collected in June, 1989. year 1979 onwards, is in fact collected in June, 1989. year 1979 onwards, is in fact collected in June, 1989. Therefore, this submission cannot be considered. Therefore, this submission cannot be considered. Therefore, this submission cannot be considered. 5. She has filed another affidavit with 5. She has filed another affidavit with 5. She has filed another affidavit with panchanama pointing out that another saw mill of M/s. panchanama pointing out that another saw mill of M/s. panchanama pointing out that another saw mill of M/s. Kamdar Industries Company which is similarly situated Kamdar Industries Company which is similarly situated Kamdar Industries Company which is similarly situated and where there is no interim protection is in fact and where there is no interim protection is in fact and where there is no interim protection is in fact functioning and no action is being taken. This cannot functioning and no action is being taken. This cannot functioning and no action is being taken. This cannot be a ground to grant any interim relief. We expect be a ground to grant any interim relief. We expect be a ground to grant any interim relief. We expect the Government to act uniformly and take action the Government to act uniformly and take action the Government to act uniformly and take action against this M/s. Kamdar Industries Company also. against this M/s. Kamdar Industries Company also. against this M/s. Kamdar Industries Company also. 6. A copy of this order be forwarded to the 6. A copy of this order be forwarded to the 6. A copy of this order be forwarded to the Asstt. Conservator of Forest, Government of Asstt. Conservator of Forest, Government of Asstt. Conservator of Forest, Government of Maharashtra to take action for violating the Maharashtra to take action for violating the Maharashtra to take action for violating the provisions of law. Civil Application is rejected. provisions of law. Civil Application is rejected. provisions of law. Civil Application is rejected. (H.L.GOKHALE,J.) (H.L.GOKHALE,J.) (H.L.GOKHALE,J.) 3 (SMT.R.S.DALVI,J.) (SMT.R.S.DALVI,J.) (SMT.R.S.DALVI,J.)