MOH HAZI RAFEEQ Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CYRIAC Joseph, C. J. The petitioner is holder of a licence issued under the U. P. Establish ment 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 22-02-2000 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 re ceived Annexure 1 letter dated 16-09-2005 from the Principal Chief Conser vator 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 lo cation of the saw mill is against the order dated 05-05-1998 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Interim Ap plication 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 22-02-2000 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 22-02-2000 would be cancelled. The petitioner did not com ply 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 or der dated 29-09-2005, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest cancelled the permission granted to the petitioner as per his earlier order dated 22-02-2000. Challenging the said Annexure 10 order dated 29-09-2005, the peti tioner 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 Regula tion 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 au thority. It is pointed out that the Prin cipal 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 pro duced any licence issued to him by the Divisional Forest Officer or any order canceling the licence by the Divisional Forest Officer. He has also not chal lenged any order passed by the Divi sional Forest Officer canceling the li cence issued to him. What is challenged in the writ petition is Annexure 10 or der passed by the Principal Chief Con servator of Forest. As per Annexure 10 order, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest only cancelled his own order passed on 22-02-2000 (Annexure 5 ). It cannot be disputed that an authority which issued the order is competent to cancel the said order for valid and suf ficient 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 16-09-2005 by which the petitioner was given 10 days for re locating the saw mill beyond an aerial distance of 10 Kms. from the boundary of the Forest. THE reasons for such a directory were stated in the notice dated 16-09- 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 For est and if such an objection was raised, he would have considered such objec tion before passing the final order (Annexure 10 ). THEre is nothing to in dicate that the petitioner had filed any objection to Annexure 1 notice before the Principal Chief Conservator of For est. In such circumstances, it cannot be held that Annexure 10 order was issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest without competence or in viola tion of the principles of natural justice. It cannot also be said that by canceling his own order, the Principal Chief Con servator of Forest deprived the petitioner of the right of filing appeal against any cancellation of the licence.

(3.) HOWEVER, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the distance of 10 Kms. should not be taken as aerial distance, but as road distance. We do not find any valid reason or justification for giving such an interpretation to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The ob ject of prohibiting relocation of saw mills within 10 Kms. from any exist ing forest is to preserve and protect forests and to prevent illicit felling of trees and destruction of forests and also to avoid the adverse impact of pollution, if any, caused by saw mills, on the forests. Considering the above object, it is necessary and proper to understand the distance of 10 Kms. specified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as aerial distance and not road distance. If it is understood as road distance, there are various possibili ties of circumventing the restriction and frustrating the object of the re striction and locating saw mills near the forests. The roads need not al ways be straight and short and very often in a Hill State like Uttaranchal, roads are zigzag and circular. Bearing in mind the public interest and the national interest, this Court cannot accept an interpretation which will di lute the rigour of the restriction im posed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, we are of the view that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest was right and justified in un derstanding the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as one which prohib its relocation of saw mills within an aerial distance of 10 Kms. from an existing forest. The petitioner has no case that if the aerial distance is taken into account, the petitioner's saw mill is not located within 10 Kms. Hence, the challenge against Annexures 1 and 10 orders is bound to fail and the writ petition is liable to be rejected.