SANJIB KUMAR MOHANTY Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, in this writ petition filed by way of public interest litigation, seek direction to the opposite parties to cause an enquiry with regard to involvement of two Saw Mills, namely, 'M/s Behera Saw Mill' and 'M/s Jalaram Saw Mill', of which opposite parties no.6 and 7 are respectively the proprietors, in illegal wood logging and wood laundering and take appropriate action. They further seek direction to the opposite party-authorities to take action for relocating/shifting of those Saw Mills to a radial distance beyond the restrictive area of Similipal Reserve Forest (National Park), Hatikote Reserve Forest, Mancha Bandha Reserve Forest and Village Forest.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the petitioners, claiming to be public spirited persons having no personal interest, individual gain, private motive or oblique reasons, have filed this public interest litigation, stating inter alia that the private opposite parties no.6 and 7 are the proprietors and owners of M/s Behera Saw Mill and M/s Jalaram Saw Mill situated in Chancha Industrial Estate, Baripada. M/s Behera Saw Mill is located over IDCO-Plot Nos.85 (P), 86(P), 87 and 88 measuring Ac.0.300 for 2500 cft per month, whereas M/s Jalaram Saw Mill is located on IDCO Plot Nos.8284, 860 (P), measuring Ac.0.344 for 2900 cft. per month. Validity of the licenses of both the Saw Mills were from 15/11/2021 up to 24/11/2023. The conditions attached to the licenses were as follows:-

(3.) Mr. S.S. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that opposite parties no.6 and 7, contrary to the terms and condition no.16(a) of the license, have transferred the control of the Saw Mills in the name of opposite party no.8, who is a wood mafia and is involved in illegal felling of trees, which was admitted by opposite party no.4 in the counter affidavit. But opposite party no.4, having hands in gloves with the private opposite parties no.6, 7 and 8, is not taking any action. To fortify his argument, it is contended that the mobile number provided by opposite party nos.6 and 7 in the Govt. website belonged to opposite party no.8 and, therefore, there is nexus between opposite parties no.6 and 7 with opposite party no.8 for illegal using of Saw Mills for illegal gain. It is further contended that the Saw Mills are being operated within the prohibitory zone and the forest officials are not regularly monitoring the activities of the Saw Mills by installing CCTV and taking any real time data, because of which they are heavily involved in illegal felling of trees in the reserve forest. Thereby, the action of the authority is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law. It is further contended that the Saw Mills have also not taken consent to establish and operate from the State Pollution Control Board, whereas other Saw Mills are operating after obtaining the said permission. It is further contended that the Saw Mills even though are engaged in felling of trees from the reserve forest, but they have not obtained any license, as is mandated by the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. It is further contended that Baripada City in the year 2023 has been recorded as the hottest place, which warrants an immediate action to prevent the work being carried out by the Saw Mills directly affecting the environment. It is further contended that even if the Saw Mills have rehabilitated as per the orders of the Supreme Court, but the said orders never intended for the rehabilitation of the Saw Mills inside the prohibitory zone by establishing industrial estate. It is contended that the legislative intent behind the Act was to regulate the Saw Mill operation throughout the State and to control deforestation. Before enactment of the Act, the license was required by private individuals to operate within forests and in the surrounding. Subsequently, the 1991 Act was introduced incorporating the absolute ban in the prohibitory zone. It is further contended that the 3rd proviso introduced after amendment has to be read constructively with the first proviso and not destructively and if done the latter would defeat the legislative intent of the Act so also the force of the Act would be stripped away and would result in the whole Act being reduced to mere pieces of paper.