SUSHILA SAW MILL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is yet another round of attack on constitutional validity of S. 4(1) of the Orissa Saw Mills and Saw Pits (Control) Act, 1991 (";the Act";) on the ground that it violates Arts. 19(1)(g) and 14 of the Constitution. By the said provision is created a total ban against the operation or establishment of private saw mills / pits in the prohibited zone specified therein, namely, a reserved forest, protected forest or any forest area or area within ten kilometers from the boundary of any such forest or forest area. Earlier round of attack was in the case of Laxminarayan Saw Mill etc. v. State of Orissa, 1995 (1) CLR (FB). Tracing the historical background of the Legislation and its purpose, this Court upheld the validity. Following observations made therein are relevant :-

(2.) The only point canvassed in this petition is that the saw mill in question is situated in Keonjhar district of Orissa nearly whole of which consists of forest area, as a result, in that district there cannot be a saw mill/ pit and hence vis-a-vis saw mills / pits in that district the restriction partakes the character of total prohibition and, therefore, the provision is unconstitutional.

(3.) The submission is ill conceived. The words ";reasonable restrictions"; in Art. 19(6) of the Constitution can in appropriate case include even prohibition. There cannot be any categorical uniform answer to the question in which case the restriction can include total prohibition. Basic question is of reasonableness and this will depend upon several factors like the nature of business, the nature and effect of the restriction, the ambit of the right, the effect of the restrictions on the right and the nature of mischief the legislation seeks to remedy. Where prohibition is only with respect to exercise of the right in particular area or relating to a particular matter, there is no total prohibition of the right. The prohibition becomes total only if the effect of restriction is to prevent a citizen from exercising his right at all. In order to determine whether total prohibition would be reasonable, the Court has to balance its direct impact on the fundamental right of the citizens affected thereby as against the greater public or social interest sought to be ensured. Judged on the above touchstone, by virtue of time only fact that a particular district is carved out of forest area, the restrictions does not become total and even if it becomes total, it is not unreasonable.