1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12-11-2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)No.11720 of 2011 And M.P.(MD) Nos.1 to 3 of 2011 P.Ananthan .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Forest Officer, Tiruchirapalli Region, Court Campus, Cantonment,Tiruchirapalli. 2.The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Musiri, Trichy District. .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pursuant to the order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.5087/11/L dated 8.9.2011 and quash the same and consequently directing the second respondent to restore the electricity supply Electricity Service Connection No.1230, Vethapatti, V-Thirumurugan Nagar. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Subash Babu For Respondent-1 : Mr.B.Pugazhenthi, Special Government Pleader. For Respondent-2 : Mr.S.M.S.Johnny Basha,Standing Counsel for TNEB. O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, challenging a direction issued by the District Forest Officer, who is the first respondent herein, to the second respondent-Electricity Board to disconnect the service connection of the petitioner. 2. I have heard Mr.M.Subash Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.B.Pugazhenthi, learned Special Government Pleader for the first respondent and Mr.S.M.S.Johnny Basha, learned Standing counsel for the second respondent-Electricity Board. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he obtained service connection for the supply of 1,206 Watts of electricity, from the second respondent on 17.9.2010, for the purpose of running a Firewood Breaking Factory. The petitioner also obtained sanction for an additional load of 7,460 Watts on 2.4.2011. 4. The petitioner claims to have made an application to the first respondent on 11.7.2011 proposing to start a Saw Mill. He has also complied with all the formalities. However, the first respondent issued a letter dated 8.9.2011 to the second respondent pointing out that the petitioner is running a Saw Mill without a license. In pursuance of the said letter of the first respondent, the second respondent issued a show cause notice dated 3.10.2011, threatening to effect disconnection. The petitioner sent a reply on 5.10.2011 contending that he was not running a Saw Mill and that he should be given an opportunity of personal hearing before the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 disconnection is effected. But the second respondent disconnected the electricity supply on 10.10.2011, forcing the petitioner to come up with the above writ petition. 5. On 12.10.2011, when the writ petition came up for admission, I ordered notice to the respondents. On the next date of hearing viz., 14.10.2011, I directed the respondents to file an affidavit indicating the nature of the business carried on by the petitioner. 6. Thereafter the respondents filed independent counter affidavits as well as the documents. 7. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent (District Forest Officer), he has stated that in pursuance of the orders passed on 29.10.2002 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad vs. Union of India, no one is permitted to operate a Saw Mill. In pursuance of the orders of the Supreme Court, the Government of Tamil Nadu had already framed the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Wood Based Industries Rules, 2010. According to the first respondent, the petitioner has not filed any application in terms of the above Rules. It is also stated by the first respondent that when an application was received from one T.P.Nallusamy of Musiri under The Right to Information Act, the Forest Range Officer, Tiruchirappalli, conducted an enquiry and found out that the petitioner was running a Saw Mill. It was also found that by a letter dated 6.7.2011, the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board had also instructed the petitioner to shift his Saw Mill to a non-residential area. The Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department confirmed the existence of the Saw Mill. Therefore, the first respondent had no alternative except to direct the second respondent to disconnect the electricity supply. 8. The second respondent has filed a counter almost on identical line as the first respondent. In addition, the second respondent has filed photographs of the petitioner's Unit. 9. In T.N.Godavarman Thirumalpad vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court constituted a Central Empowered Committee and issued directions from time to time. One of the directions issued by the Supreme Court on 29.10.2002 was as follows:- "No State or Union Territory shall permit any unlicensed saw-mills, veneer, plywood industry to operate and they are directed to close all such unlicensed unit forthwith. No State Government or Union Territory will permit the opening of any saw-mills, veneer or plywood industry without prior permission of the Central Empowered Committee. The Chief Secretary of each State will ensure strict compliance of this direction. There shall also be no relaxation of rules with regard to the grant of license without previous concurrence of the Central Empowered Committee." 10. It is interesting to note that the prohibitory order of the Supreme Court dated 29.10.2002 was in the cold storage of the State Government for 5 years without any action. At last, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu appears to have sent a letter bearing No.30190/FRXIII/01-21 dated 26.3.2007, which reads as follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 "I am directed to request you to pursue necessary action to ensure strict compliance of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. I am further directed to inform you that in violation of the above order if any Saw Mill is functioning with the licence/sanction/electricity etc., issued by them after 29.10.2002 without Central Empowered Committee's permission, then your Department will be held fully responsible for violating the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and in the contempt proceedings, if any, initiated in this matter." 11. Similarly, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests issued a letter bearing No.WR3/9116/2008 to the Chairman, TNEB on 28.3.2008, which reads as follows:- "I wish to state that it is the duty of every Department including the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to ensure strict compliance of Hon'ble Supreme Court order and verify the details of Saw Mills to which connections have been issued in the past and necessary action to ensure strict compliance of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India orders is to be pursued by the concerned Department." 12. Thereafter, the Electricity Board was constrained to file a petition in Miscellaneous Petition No.30 of 2008 before the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, seeking appropriate directions to the Government of Tamil Nadu to frame rules to implement the directions issued by the Supreme Court in its order dated 29.10.2002. The said petition was disposed of by the Commission by an order dated 29.6.2009. But a perusal of the order of the Regulatory Commission shows that instead of issuing a direction to the Government of Tamil Nadu to frame rules, as prayed for by the TNEB, the Regulatory Commission merely clarified that despite Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Electricity Board cannot issue service connection to Saw Mills, which did not have a proper license from the Central Empowered Committee. It is only after this order of the Regulatory Commission dated 29.6.2009, that the Government issued the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Wood Based Industries Rules, 2010 with effect from 21.10.2010. 13. But during this interregnum period from 2002 till 2010, the unlicensed Saw Mills were operating merrily. The direction issued by the Supreme Court on 29.10.2002 to the Chief Secretary to ensure strict compliance with the direction to close all unlicensed units, was thrown to the winds. Not only were the existing industries allowed to operate, but the State also turned a blind eye even to the starting of new Saw Mills without any license, during this period from 2002 to 2010. Ultimately, it was only after the issue of the aforesaid rules that the Forest Department woke up from their slumber and started tightening the noose around the neck of these Saw Mills. When the final wake up call came, some of the petitioners appear to have submitted applications under the aforesaid rules. But in the meantime, the Electricity Board has either disconnected their supply or the Board has been instructed by the Forest Department to disconnect. 14. Keeping in mind the above developments that have taken place from 2002 to 2010, if we go back to the facts of the case, it could be seen that the case of the petitioner is one of total denial. In other words, the only contention of the petitioner is that he is not running a Saw Mill, but https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 running only a Wood Cutting Industry. But to show a prima facie case that his industry cannot be termed as a Saw Mill, the petitioner has not produced even a scrap of paper before this Court. On the contrary, the first respondent has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is running a Saw Mill, on the basis of not one Certificate, but two Certificates viz.,:- (i) A letter of the Pollution Control Board dated 6.7.2011, asking the petitioner to shift the Saw Mill and (ii) A Certificate of the Commercial Taxes Department, showing that it is a Saw Mill. 15. In addition to the above Certificates, the first respondent has had an inspection conducted by the Forest Range Officer, after an application was filed by a resident of Musiri, under the Right to Information Act. The petitioner has not chosen to file a reply affidavit to the counter. The petitioner did not also file either the communication of the Pollution Control Board or the Certificate of Registration issued by the Commercial Taxes Department. Therefore, apart from the fact that the petitioner failed to produce any document to show that the industry carried on by him is not a Saw Mill, he has also failed to rebut the presumption created by the first respondent, by pointing out the above. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 16. In any case, the load for which the petitioner has obtained sanction from the Electricity Board, belies the claim made by the petitioner that it is a Wood breaking/Cutting Industry. Apart from the fact that there is not a great deal of difference between the two, the fact remains that the sanctioned load obtained by the petitioner is an indication of the nature of the industry carried on by the petitioner. 17. The complaint of the petitioner that there is violation of natural justice and that no opportunity was given to him before the impugned communication was issued, cannot be accepted. After the order of the Supreme Court, dated 29.10.2002, no one can start a Saw Mill. If a person does, he will be committing contempt of Court. If the orders of the respondent are set aside on the ground that there was violation of the principles of natural justice, this Court would be aiding and abetting the commission of contempt of Court. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and it is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to apply for a license in terms of the order of the Supreme Court and the new set of rules. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( Crl Side ) /TRUE COPY/ Svn SUB ASST REGISTRAR To 1.The District Forest Officer, Tiruchirapalli Region, Court Campus, Cantonment, Tiruchirapalli. 2.The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Musiri, Trichy Dt. 1CC TO MR. PUGALENDHI, SPL. GOVT PLEADER SR: 39494: 1CC TO MR. M. SUBASH BABU, ADVOCATE, SR: 39532: DM::2011:NOVEMBER:29:: Order in W.P.(MD)No.11720 of 2011 4P;5C:: 12-11-2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/