Singh Saw Mill vs State of Jharkhand and Others

S. Chandrashekhar, J.

Initially, the writ petition was filed seeking a direction upon the respondents to take a final decision for grant/renewal of license to the petitioner in view of order dated 8.12.2002 in W.P. (C) No. 3672 of 2001 and order dated 4.3.2004 in Contempt Civil Case No. 381 of 2003. A further prayer for a direction for release of wood seized on 9.11.2004 and for an appropriate direction to drop the Confiscation Case No. 08 of 2004 was also sought in the writ petition. In I.A. No. 3765 of 2009, orders passed in Appeal No. 09 of 2005 and Appeal No. 06 of 2004 have been challenged by making an application for amending the writ petition, which was allowed on 23.11.2011. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner applied for grant of license on 17.5.1995. The Confiscation Case No. 03 of 1995 was initiated after 21 pieces of wood were seized on 29.5.1995. The machines in the mill were also confiscated. On the same allegation, a criminal case was instituted against the petitioner in which, vide order dated 6.8.1997, the allegation against the petitioner was not found proved and accordingly/the accused persons were acquitted of the charges under section 33 of the Indian Forest Act and under section 14 of Bihar Kastha Chiran (Viniman) Act, 1990. However, the wood and machinery were not released and therefore, the petitioner approached this Court in CWJC No. 2170 of 2001, which was disposed of vide order dated 30.5.2001 directing the respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioner within six weeks. It was further observed by this Court that the respondents may issue appropriate order regarding grant/renewal of license and release of seized article within the said period. In the meantime, the petitioner preferred appeal against order passed in Confiscation Case No. 03 of 1995 and the appellate authority declared confiscation of mill, illegal. Another confiscation case being, Confiscation Case No. 27 of 2000 was initiated against the petitioner with respect to seizure of 63 pieces of wood. The order dated 12.7.2001 in Confiscation Case No. 27 of 2000 was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 3672 of 2001 and vide order dated 10.12.2002, the impugned order dated 12.7.2001 was quashed and the matter was remitted for consideration of the entire matter in the light of the observation made in the order. However, vide order dated 26.5.2003, the respondent rejected the prayer for grant of license, against which the petitioner preferred Appeal No. 06 of 2004, which was rejected vide order dated 21.4.2005. Though, the mill of the petitioner was closed, the officials of the Forest Department visited the mill of the petitioner and seized 12 pieces of wood on 9.11.2004 and a Confiscation Case No. 08 of 2004 was initiated. In the said case, a notice dated 11.11.2004 was issued fixing the date of hearing on 24.11.2004 however, the said notice was received by the petitioner on 27.11.2004. The petitioner submitted application dated 2.12.2004 for dropping the confiscation case and release of seized articles. Against the order passed in Confiscation Case No. 08 of 2004, the petitioner preferred Appeal No. 09 of 2005, which was disposed of vide order dated 22.9.2006, affirming the order passed by the authorised officer. A further direction was issued to the licensing officer to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of license, after taking an undertaking that the petitioner would not commit offence in future. Consequently, orders dated 22.9.2006 and 21.4.2005 have also been challenged by the petitioner.

A counter-affidavit has been filed supporting the orders passed in Appeal No. 06 of 2004 and Appeal No. 09 of 2005.

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that though, vide order dated 30.5.2001, this Court directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of license and release of seized articles and order passed in Confiscation Case No. 27 of 2000 was quashed by this Court, the respondents with a view to harass the petitioner, instituted two separate confiscation cases. Even though, the mill of the petitioner was closed since long, on 911.2004, the officials of Forest Department allegedly seized 12 pieces of wood and instituted Confiscation Case No. 08 of 2004. It is thus submitted that the respondents without complying the orders passed by this Court, continued to institute case after case against the petitioner in apparently illegal manner and therefore, orders dated 21.4.2005 and 22.9.2006 are liable to be quashed.

As against the above, the learned Counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand reiterated the stand taken in the counter-affidavit and submitted that the orders passed by the authorised officer have been affirmed by the appellate authority and therefore, no interference is required in the matter.

I have carefully considered the submission of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.

A perusal of order dated 21.4.2005 indicates that the application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that it was not submitted in prescribed format and also for the reason that the petitioner has been found violating the provisions of Forest Act time and again. The application seeking renewal of license has been rejected on the ground that no license was issued to the petitioner. I find that in view of successive petitions filed by the petitioner in this Court, it was incumbent upon the respondents to ask the petitioner to make application in proper format for grant of license, which admittedly has not been done in the present case. The orders passed by the respondents do not disclose that the order of acquittal passed by the Criminal Court on 6.8.1997 has been considered by the respondents. Order dated 12.7.2001 in Confiscation Case No. 27 of 2000 has been quashed by this Court vide order dated 10.122002. Thus, the reason assigned in order dated 21.4.2005 in Appeal No. 06 of 2004 rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has violated the provisions of Forest Act repeatedly, cannot be accepted. Accordingly, order dated 21.4.2005 must be held suffering from patent infirmity in law. Insofar as, order passed in Appeal No. 09 of 2005 is concerned, I find that the direction issued to the licensing officer for taking an undertaking from the petitioner that he would not commit forest offence in future, is without authority in law. The respondents have not brought on record any provision under which, an applicant is required to submit such an undertaking. Accordingly, order dated 22.9.2006 stands quashed.

The petitioner is granted liberty to approach the licensing officer for grant of license and the licensing officer would take a decision, in accordance with law, within six weeks of submission of an application by the petitioner for grant of license. The writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.