MOHD HAZI RAFEEQ Vs. STATE OF UTTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is holder of a licence issued under the U. P. Establishment and Regulation of Saw Mills Rules, 1978. The licence was originally issued in the name of Sri Abdul Rashid s/o Sri Abdul Hakim, r/o Bhawaniganj, Ram Nagar, District Nainital. As per Annexure 5 order dated 22-2-2000 of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Uttar Pradesh, permission was granted to transfer the licence in the name of the petitioner and to relocate the saw mill at Lakri Mandi, Amritpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. On the basis of the said permission, the petitioner has been operating the saw mill at Lakri Mandi, Amritpur in Udham Singh Nagar. Suddenly, the petitioner received Annexure-I letter dated 16-9-2005 from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Uttaranchal stating that the petitioner's saw mill is located within 10 Kms. at an approximate aerial distance of 4 Kms. from the boundary of the forest and that such location of the saw mill is against the order dated 5-5-1998 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Interim Application No. 385/1997 in Writ Petition No. 202/95 and also against the terms and conditions regarding relocation of saw mill in the order dated 22-2-2000 of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest. The petitioner was also directed to relocate his saw mill beyond an aerial distance of 10 Kms. from the boundary of the forest within 10 days failing which the permission granted in the order dated 22-2-2000 would be cancelled. The petitioner did not comply with the above direction to relocate the saw mill beyond an aerial distance of 10 Kms. from the boundary of the forest. Therefore, by Annexure 10 order dated 29-9-2005, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest cancelled the permission granted to the petitioner as per his earlier order dated 22-2-2000. Challenging the said Annexure 10 order dated 29-9-2005, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the competent authority to issue or cancel the licence under the Uttaranchal Establishment and Regulation of Saw Mills Rules, 2004 is the Divisional Forest Officer and a person aggrieved by the order or decision of the Divisional Forest Officer has a right of appeal to the Conservator of Forest. As a result of Annexure 10 order passed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, the petitioner has been denied the right of appeal to the appellate authority. It is pointed out that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest is an authority superior to the Conservator of Forest. We do not find any merit in this contention. The petitioner has not produced any licence issued to him by the Divisional Forest Officer or any order cancelling the licence by the Divisional Forest Officer. He has also not challenged any order passed by the Divisional Forest Officer cancelling the licence issued to him. What is challenged in the writ petition is Annexure 10 order passed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest. As per Annexure 10 Order, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest only cancelled his own order passed on 22-2-2000 (Annexure 5). It cannot be disputed that an authority which issued the order is competent to cancel the said order for valid and sufficient reasons and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The impugned order (Annexure 10) was passed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest after issuing Annexure 1 notice dated 16-9-2005 by which the petitioner was given 10 days for relocating the saw mill beyond an aerial distance of 10 Kms. from the boundary of the Forest. The reasons for such a direction were stated in the notice dated 16-9-2005. If the petitioner had any valid objection to the said direction, he had the opportunity to raise it before the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and if such an objection was raised, he would have considered such objection before passing the final order (Annexure 10). There is nothing to indicate that the petitioner had filed any objection to Annexure 1 notice before the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest. In such circumstances, it cannot be held that Annexure 10 order was issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest without competence or in violation of the principles of natural justice. It cannot also be said that by cancelling his own order, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest deprived the petitioner of the right of filing appeal against any cancellation of the licence.

(3.) The second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest has erred in taking the view that, as per the order dated 5-5-1998 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition No. 202/95, the distance of 10 Kms. from the boundary of the forest should be aerial distance. According to the learned counsel, what the Hon'ble Supreme Court intended is 'road distance' and not 'aerial distance'. In Writ Petition No. 202/95, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had passed the following order on 8-5-1997 (vide (1997) 7 SCC 440) :