4 ^-> ^ (- f- fSTQ uN THEHIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATs BILASPUR W.P. (Cl No. OF 2008 PETITIONER: Puran Lal Chandrakar, aged 53 years, son of late Shri Daya Ram Chandrakar, resident of village and post ofBce - ^agara, tahsil Lonm, -•--^" ~ ,- ! - /^^\'''^>:".-^'" district BUaspur (Chhattisgarh). ^..<^ ^^ ^^r ^ RESPONDENTS: T^: VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, department ofForest.Raipur, 2. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Chfaattisgarh, Raipur, 3. Conservator ofForest, Bilaspur Circle, Bilaspur (C.G.), 4^'Divisional Forest Officer, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur .^} ^v^^ (C.G.). ^^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICI.E 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ^—<-•-—*. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH; BltASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manjndra Mohan Shrivastava. J. 1'v.' PETITLONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (0 N0.305Sff008 Puran Lal Chandrakar Versus State of Chhattisgarh &Athers Preseni: - Shri Somnath Verma, counsel for the petitibner. , Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Government Advoeate; for the Stete/respondents. ORAl.ORDER , ! : ,. :::: ,,, ,';::.:X': (Passed oh 15th ofMarch, 2011) By this peUtion, the petjttoner has challenged legality and validify of notificationdated 17/1/91 (AnneXure P/9) as also the oirder rejecting pelitioners •<£.»• : : . •: •'. • . ! application for renevval of Ijcense (AnnexuFeP/Sand P/10). 2. The case of the petitioner is that after coming into fbrce of the Chhattisgarh KashthaChiran (Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1984") and rules made thereunder, the activity of Saw-Mill business was regulated and therefore the father ofthe petiUoner applied for grant of license under thesaid Act which was granted to him. Thereafter, the license was renewed from time to time butwhenan application for renewal of license was made in theyear 1990, the same was rejected vide order dated 15/11/90 (Annexure P/8) stating tnatin view of the Govemmenrs notifieation..Uiearea where Saw-Mili is established, falls within the prohibited area. Thereafter, the Government had been renewing proilibitionevery three years with ttie resuitthat the ban continued. The father of the petitioner died-TO the y6ar 1^4. The petitioner intended to run the business of Saw-Mill stfter tte de'atti of hls father •^. ^s€/ ^5t&Ea3l'y ^ and therefore, preferred represenfation to the authorities. Vide letter dated 30/11/94 (Annexure P/11), the Sub-Divisionat Officer, Forest recommended to the Divisional Forest Officer for removing prohibltion in Lagaraarea. Thereafter, memo dated 28/12/94 (Annexure P/12) was sent by the Conservator of Forestto the Chief Consewator of Forest for removing Uie prohibition in Lagara area. Even then, till date,the prohibition has not been removed and it continued, on account ofwhteh, the petitioner is unable to earry out the business ofSaw-Mill. it is also submitted that in course of'time, though the Government tifted the prohibition in respeet of surrounding vitlages, the prohibition in village Lagara is stlil continuing which is an act of discrimination. tt is also the case ofthe petitionerthattheStateGovemmenthadtakena decisionwhich wasciyculated to allconcemed,on28/10/07 (AnnexureP/15),perBnittingtrahsferofSaw-Mill from prohibiteci area to unprohibHed area. The petitioner therefore movedan appiication fortransferof his Saw-Mill to an unprohibited area butthatapplication has also been rejected by the Divisionat Forest OfRcer vide his order dated 9/5/08. 3. Leamed counsel for the petitioner argued that Uiere may have been justiflcation for imposing ban in the year 1990 in viliage-Lagara, now those cireumstances, no longer exist and the Govemment couid not havs mechanically renewed prohibition for the last two decades. He further submits that the Consen/ator of Forest has already recommended vide his letter dated 28/12/95 to remove ban and deciare Lagara as unprohibitedarea, the same has not been •taken into consideration atthe timeof renewal ofban after everythree years. Lastly, itis submitted that ifthatis not permissibie, the petitioner Should atleasi "^ ':i.-^~ ^^.SSS^ ^^. ll.fl be allowed to shift the Saw-IVtili to an unprohibited area, which has been iilegally rejected. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that the petitioner has not sought any relief for quashing of statutory notification of prohibitiQn issued by the State Government exercising powers conferred under Section 5 ofthe Act of 1984. He submits that in the absence of any such prayer, the petitioneF is not entitled to any retief of the nature,as has been prayed by him in the petition. He further submifs that the State is competent to impose prohibition but with the rider that such a prohibition would be continued for a period of three years at a tlme. The other submission of leamedcounsel forthe State is thatwhether ornot.the ban is to be continued, is a matter for determination ofthe State Govemment and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief of directionto the State Government not to renew the prohibition. Lastly, it is submitted thatthe petitioners application for transfer/ shifting of his Saw-Mjll was rejected in view ofthe order of the State Govemment which was based on the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of T.N.Godaverman y. Govemment of tndia. He submits that the apptication for shifting can be entertained only in those cases, where Saw-Mill was in operation on thexlate of order of the Supreme Court. In the case of the petitioner.-since the Saw-MiII operation had come to an end in the year 1990 itself, the application ofthe petitioner for transfer has been rightlyrejected. 5. The prohibitlon of Saw-Mili operation in an area can be regulated by the State under the statutory scheme ofthe Actof 1984. itis not disputedthat the State Go^ernment issued notification in exercise of powers conferred under Section 5 ofthe Actof1984, imposing prohibition of Saw-Mill operation in Lagara area. Therefore, the petitioner coutd not claim to run Saw-Mill business as long V: w^. 1 //' 4 •w as statutory prohibition continues. No relief has beenprayed for in the peUtion to quash the notification ofthe Government. The grievance of the petitioner that even though, reeommendations have been made by the Conservator of Eorest, theprohibition is being renewed aftereverythree years in a mechanicalmanner, therefore the ban should not be allowed to continue any further, cannot be accepted. Though it wouldalways be open for the respondent authorities tp take. into Gonsideration, all relevant cireumstances, recommendations, both for and against prohibition, no mandamus can be issued by this Court to the State to exercise such statutory power in one way or the other. The action ofthe State in issuing prohibition in any case, cannot be gone into,in the absence of there being any chaltenge to the nbtiflcation and in the absence of there beingany relief prayed forin that regard. 6. As far as grievance with regard to the rejection of application of transfer/ shifting is concerned, indisputably, the petltioner has not been carrying out any Saw-Milt operation after 1990. A perusal of order dated 25/10/07 (Annexure P/15) shows that the consideration for transfer/renewal is available only in respect of those cases, which are induded in the list produced before the Supreme Court. The petitioner could not establish that his case was also included in that list. Therefore, no retief can be granted inthat regard. 7. Learned counsei for the petitioner submitted that eyen assuming that the ban has been continuing aii these years, is hot iliegat, he submite that every time, when the ban is required to be renewed, the State is duty bound to consider change in circumstances and Various recommendations which are made from timetotime. E 8. The State is always be at iiberty to consider all reievant circumstances and other materials which comes to its notice in the matter of exercising statutory power of prohibition. Whether ban should be continued or not, is a matter of consideratlon for the State but no specific direction can be issued in that regard totheState. « 9. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is finally disposed off. B Deyuti w:g Sd/- 9Manindra Mohan Shrivastava 1 •;.'~;'-'Judge KS ?,') ..w^