LAXMINARAYAN SAW MILL Vs. STATE FB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Forests of Orissa are the invaluable treasure of this culturally rich but financially poor State. In order to prevent the illegal and ruthless exploitation of this wealth, some measures were tried by the State. For veracity of reasons - theoretical as well as practical - they were found inadequate to prevent this menace and hence a more stringent measure has been introduced. It is the Orissa Saw Mills and Saw Pits (Control) Act, 1991 (the Act). The Act is intended to create a total bar against establishing or operating any saw mill or saw pit within a reserved forest, protected forest, or any forest area, or within a radius of ten kilometers from the boundary of any such forests or forests areas. Section 4 of the Act, which has imposed this restriction, reads thus-

(2.) Validity of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 4 was challenged in this Court on the ground that it is ultra vires Art. 14 of the Constitution if it is interpreted to mean a total ban. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Saraswati Saw Mill v. State of Orissa (O.J.C. No. 1826 of 1994, and other connected matters, decided on 239-1994) read down the proviso as not creating a total ban against establishment as well as operation of saw mill/ pit in the prohibited zone and on that basis held the same as constitutional. Finding it difficult to agree with the said interpretation of the proviso, another Division Bench has, in these petitions, referred the following three questions to the Full Bench :-

(3.) Having heard parties at length, we find it difficult to sustain the view that the proviso to Section 4(1) does not create a total bar and the Act gives the discretion to the authorities under the Act to grant or not to grant licence to operate the saw mills and/or saw pits in the prohibited zone. We neither see any unconstitutionality in the proviso to Section 4(1) nor the vice of legislative incompetence in the Act.