# Chaudhary Chandan Singh v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2005) 4 ILRA 1122
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-07-05
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47307 of 2005
- **Bench:** Dr. B.S. Chauhan, Dilip Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chaudhary-chandan-singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40553
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226readwith Saw Mill Rules 1998-rule 5,6
and
7
alongwith
Notification
dated
3.6.2002-Grant of Saw Mill licenceRegional Director Samajik Vaniki Van
Prabhag-rejected
the
application
for
renewal-challenge made on the ground
placing reliance upon the decisions of
Supreme Court in Jawahar Lal Case
reported in J.T. 2002 (1) SC-413-heldsubsequent decisions of the Apex Court
not brought before the Supreme Courtby which it is mandatory that the
application for licence to be placed
before
the
Central
Empowered
Committee-Regional
Director
rightly
rejected
the
application-call
for
no
interference by High Court.

Held: Para 18 and 23

It is upon a consideration of the
aforesaid provision of the Rules and the
orders of the Supreme Court that the
Regional
Director
has
rejected
the
application of the petitioner for grant of
licence. It has been noticed that the
licence had never been issued in favour
of the petitioner prior to 4th March, 1997
but even without the issue of such
licence
the
petitioner
had
been
depositing the licence fee. It has further
been
noticed
that
the
Central
Empowered
Committee
in
its
recommendations
placed
before
the
Supreme Court had made it clear that
the licence cannot be granted merely
upon deposit of the licence fee and in
such
circumstances,
the
petitioner
cannot take the benefit of the decision
given by this Court in Nand Lal Vs. State
of U.P. & Ors,. 2002 ALJ 1255. The
Regional Director has also referred to
the directions issued by the Supreme
Court that no State Government or the
Union of India shall permit the opening
of saw-mill without prior permission of
the Central Empowered Committee. In
such
circumstances
the
Regional
Director has concluded that the licence
4 All] Chaudhary Chandan Singh V. State of U.P. and others
1123
could not be issued but it has been
observed that in case the petitioner
desired he could place his application
before
the
Central
Empowered
Committee.

In the present case the licence of the
saw mill of the petitioner had not been
renewed prior to 4th March, 1997. The
directions of the Supreme Court make it
obligatory
in
such
cases,
for
the
applicants to place their application
before
the
Central
Empowered
Committee. This is precisely what has
been observed in the order of the
Regional Director.
Case law discussed:
1997 (2) SCC-267
1997 (3) SCC-312
1997 (7) SCC-440
2002 ALJ-1255

## Text

1122 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
such an appeal is not maintainable and in
para 6 this Court has observed as under: -

"....................... We are in respectful
agreement with the view taken in the
aforesaid decisions that no appeal is
maintainable under Chapter VIII, Rule 5
of this Rules of the Court against any
order
passed
in
proceedings
under
Contempt of Courts Act as it is a self
contained Code and it also provides for a
remedy of appeal under Section 19 though
only against specific type of orders or
decisions." (para 6)

10. In the present case also since the
Hon'ble Single Judge has refused to
entertain contempt petition, the appeal
under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of
the Court, is not maintainable and the
contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant, therefore, is rejected.

11. In view of the above discussion,
the special appeal is dismissed as not
maintainable. However, there shall be no
order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.07.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE DILIP GUPTA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47307 of 2005

Chaudhary Chandan Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ch. Chandan Singh
(In Person)

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226readwith Saw Mill Rules 1998-rule 5,6
and
7
alongwith
Notification
dated
3.6.2002-Grant of Saw Mill licenceRegional Director Samajik Vaniki Van
Prabhag-rejected
the
application
for
renewal-challenge made on the ground
placing reliance upon the decisions of
Supreme Court in Jawahar Lal Case
reported in J.T. 2002 (1) SC-413-heldsubsequent decisions of the Apex Court
not brought before the Supreme Courtby which it is mandatory that the
application for licence to be placed
before
the
Central
Empowered
Committee-Regional
Director
rightly
rejected
the
application-call
for
no
interference by High Court.

Held: Para 18 and 23

It is upon a consideration of the
aforesaid provision of the Rules and the
orders of the Supreme Court that the
Regional
Director
has
rejected
the
application of the petitioner for grant of
licence. It has been noticed that the
licence had never been issued in favour
of the petitioner prior to 4th March, 1997
but even without the issue of such
licence
the
petitioner
had
been
depositing the licence fee. It has further
been
noticed
that
the
Central
Empowered
Committee
in
its
recommendations
placed
before
the
Supreme Court had made it clear that
the licence cannot be granted merely
upon deposit of the licence fee and in
such
circumstances,
the
petitioner
cannot take the benefit of the decision
given by this Court in Nand Lal Vs. State
of U.P. & Ors,. 2002 ALJ 1255. The
Regional Director has also referred to
the directions issued by the Supreme
Court that no State Government or the
Union of India shall permit the opening
of saw-mill without prior permission of
the Central Empowered Committee. In
such
circumstances
the
Regional
Director has concluded that the licence
4 All] Chaudhary Chandan Singh V. State of U.P. and others
1123
could not be issued but it has been
observed that in case the petitioner
desired he could place his application
before
the
Central
Empowered
Committee.

In the present case the licence of the
saw mill of the petitioner had not been
renewed prior to 4th March, 1997. The
directions of the Supreme Court make it
obligatory
in
such
cases,
for
the
applicants to place their application
before
the
Central
Empowered
Committee. This is precisely what has
been observed in the order of the
Regional Director.
Case law discussed:
1997 (2) SCC-267
1997 (3) SCC-312
1997 (7) SCC-440
2002 ALJ-1255

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
for quashing the order dated 6th April,
2005 which has been passed by the
Regional Director, Samajik Vaniki Van
Prabhag, Fatehpur (hereinafter referred to
as the 'Regional Director') rejecting the
application filed by the petitioner for
grant of Saw Mill licence. The said order
was passed pursuant to the directions
issued by this Court on 21st January, 2005
in Writ Petition No. 27395 of 2004.

2. The facts stated in the petition
reveal that earlier the Saw Mill belonged
to Sri Ram Agarwal who had been
granted a licence to run saw mill. The saw
mill was sold to one Sri Narendra Kumar
Singh on 2nd February, 1989 and
thereafter it was sold by Sri Narendra
Kumar Singh to the petitioner for a
consideration
of
Rs.25,000/-.
The
petitioner then submitted an application
dated 2nd April, 1989 to the Range Officer
for transfer of the licence in his favour
and for permission to deposit the renewal
licence fee. It appears on the basis of the
aforesaid
application,
the
petitioner
deposited the licence fee of Rs. 1,000/- in
1990, 1991 and 1992. The licence was,
however, not renewed and, therefore, the
petitioner filed a writ petition in this
Court which was disposed of on 20th
October, 2003 with a direction to decide
the representation of the petitioner. The
application of the petitioner for renewal of
the licence was rejected and this was
challenged by the petitioner by filing a
writ petition being Writ Petition No.
12350 of 2004 which was disposed of on
25th March, 2004 with a direction that the
application filed by the petitioner for
grant of saw mill licence shall be
considered afresh in accordance with law.
By the order dated 24th June, 2004 the
application was again rejected. Feeling
aggrieved, the petitioner filed yet another
Writ Petition No. 27395 of 2004. The
Court by means of the judgment and order
dated 28th January, 2005 set aside the
order dated 24th June, 2004 and remanded
the matter back to the Regional Director
to decide it afresh in accordance with law.
Pursuant to the aforesaid directions of this
Court, the matter has been considered at
length by the Regional Director in the
order dated 6th April, 2005 which has
been impugned in the present petition.

3. We have heard the petitioner in
person and the learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the respondents and have
perused the materials available on record.

4. The petitioner in person has
assailed the order dated 6th April, 2005
contending that once the petitioner was
permitted to deposit the licence fee, the
respondents could not have refused the
grant of the licence and in any view of the
1124 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
matter, the order of the Supreme Court
has not been correctly interpreted by the
Regional Director. Learned Standing
Counsel on the other hand has supported
the impugned order and has submitted
that there is no infirmity as it is based
upon the orders issued by the Supreme
Court from time to time.

5. We have carefully considered the
submissions advanced by the parties.
Before examining the rival contentions,
we consider it proper to refer to the Rules
framed by the State Government and to
the orders passed by the Supreme Court
from time to time with regard to the grant
of licence to the saw mills.

6. The State Government has framed
the " Uttar Pradesh Establishment and
Regulation of Saw-mills Rules, 1978
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules').
Rule 2 defines 'Saw-mills' to mean and
include any mechanical device whether
operating with electric power, fuel power
or man-power for the purpose of cutting,
sawing or converting, timber and wood
into pieces or the like acts. Rule 3
provides that no person shall establish,
erect
or
operate
any
saw-mill
or
machinery for converting or cutting
timber and wood without obtaining a
licence from the Divisional Forest Officer
concerned. Under Rule 4 an application
has to be submitted by any person
desiring to establish, erect or operate any
existing saw-mill to the Divisional Forest
Officer concerned for obtaining a licence
in the form given in the Schedule I
appended to the Rules. Rule 5 deals with
grant of licence by the Divisional Forest
Officer after satisfying himself with
regard to the factors enumerated. Rule 7
deals with renewal of licence.

7. The matter regarding protection
and conservation of forest was considered
by
the
Supreme
Court
in
T.N.
Godavarman Thirumulkpad Vs. Union of
India & Ors., (1997) 2 SCC 267 and we
reproduce the relevant general directions
issued by the Supreme Court contained in
paragraph 5 of the judgment.

"1. In view of the meaning of the
word "forest" in the Act, it is obvious that
prior approval of the Central Government
is required for any non-forest activity
within the area of any "forest". In
accordance with Section 2 of the Act, all
on-going activity within any forest in any
State throughout the country, without the
prior approval of the Central Government,
must cease forthwith. It is, therefore, clear
that the running of saw mills of any kind
including veneer or plywood mills, and
mining of any mineral are non-forest
purposes
and
are,
therefore,
not
permissible without prior approval of the
Central Government. Accordingly, any
such activity is prima facie violation of
the provisions of the Forest Conservation
Act, 1980. Every State Government must
promptly ensure total cessation of all such
activities forthwith.
...............................

3.
The felling of trees in all forests
is
to
remain
suspended
except
in
accordance with the working plans of the
State Governments, as approved by the
Central Government. In the absence of
any working plan in any particular State,
such as Arunachal Pradesh, where the
permit system exists, the felling under the
permits can be done only by the Forest
Department of the State Government or
the State Forest Corporation.
.................................
4 All] Chaudhary Chandan Singh V. State of U.P. and others
1125
6.
Each State Government should
within
two
months,
file
a
report
regarding:

(i) the number of saw mills, veneer
and plywood mills actually operating
within the State, with particulars of their
real ownership;

(ii) the licensed and actual capacity
of these mills for stock and sawing;

(iii) their proximity to the nearest
forest;

(iv) their source of timber.

7.
Each State Government should
constitute within one month, an Expert
Committee to assess:

(i) the sustainable capacity of the
forests of the State qua saw mills and
timber-based industry;

(ii) the number of existing saw mills
which can safely be sustained in the State;

(iii) the optimum distance from the
forest, qua that State, at which the saw
mill should be located."

8. Certain minor variations were
made in the aforesaid order and the same
are reported in (1997) 3 SCC 312, T.N.
Godavarman Thirumulkpad Vs. Union of
India & Ors. and are as follows:-
"All unlicensed saw mills, veneer
and plywood industries in the State of
Maharashtra and the State of Uttar
Pradesh are to be closed forthwith and the
State Government would not remove or
relax
the
condition
for
grant
of
permission/licence for the opening of any
such saw mill, veneer and plywood
industry and it shall also not grant any
fresh permission/licence for this purpose.
The Chief Secretary of the State will
ensure strict compliance of this direction
and file a compliance report within two
weeks."

9. Thereafter certain applications
were filed in the aforesaid case of T.N.
Godavarman Thirumulkpad in which
directions were issued. These are reported
in (1997) 7 SCC 440 and the relevant
direction is reproduced below:-
"After hearing the learned amicus
curiae, the learned Attorney General and
the other learned counsel, we direct as
under:
A. In the State of Uttar Pradesh the
following is permitted-
1. Principal Chief Conservator of
Forest (PCCF) may, on a case-to-case
basis, consider grant of permission to an
existing licensed sawmill to relocate
itself, provided that the relocated site is
not within 10 kms of any existing forest."

10. In the meantime the State
Government made various amendments in
the Rules in the year 1998. The definition
of 'Saw-mill' was amended to mean and
include any mechanical device whether
operating with electric power, fuel power
or man-power for the purpose of cutting,
sawing or converting, timber and wood
into pieces or the like acts, but would not
include such mechanical device whose
engine power is up to 3 H.P.

11. The amended Rules, 5, 6 and 7
which deal with grant of licence, period of
validity of licence and renewal of licence
are as follows:-
"5. Grant of licence.- On
receipt
of an application under Rule 4 the
Divisional
Forest
Officer
shall
acknowledge the same and thereafter shall
make such enquiries as he may deem fit
and after satisfying himself with regard to
following factors, grant the licence in the
form given in Schedule II appended to
these rules:-
1126 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
(i)
that the required quantity of timber
through legitimate means would be
available at the proposed venue of
the saw-mill without causing any
damage to the tree-growth in the
forests under the control of the
Government and the adjacent rural
areas;
(ii) that the applicant has acquired or is
in a position to acquire necessary
area for erecting and running a saw
mill
in
accordance
with
the
conditions specified in the licence;
(iii) that the necessary machinery, power
etc, is available or is likely to be
available to the applicant;
(iv) that the applicant has obtained a "No
Objection Certificate"

In case the Divisional Forest Officer
is not satisfied he may reject the
application within sixty days of its
receipt:

Provided that in case the said
application is not disposed of within sixty
days from the date of the receipt of the
application by the Divisional Forest
Officer, the licence shall be deemed to
have been granted to the applicant under
this rule on the terms and conditions as
laid down in Schedule II appended to
these rules with effect from the expiry of
the said sixty days and in that event the
acknowledgement,
shall
be
adequate
proof of the licence.

Provided further that the aforesaid
proviso shall not apply to saw mills
situated within ten kilometre area of any
existing forest.
Explanation.- In this rule existing
forest shall not include trees situated on
either side of the roads and the railway
tracks.
"6. Period of validity of licence.-
Every licence granted under Rule 5 or
renewed under Rule 7 shall remain valid
for such period not exceeding three years
from the date of issue or renewal as may
be specified in the licence:

Provided that, in case of a licence
referred to in the proviso to Rule 5 or
Rule 7 the period of validity shall be three
years."

"7. Renewal of licence.- On an
application made to the Divisional Forest
Officer concerned for renewal of the
licence granted under Rule, 5 he may
renew the same indicating thereon the
period for which it has been renewed. The
renewal application for licence shall be
disposed of within sixty days of its
receipt:

Provided that in case the application
is not disposed of within sixty days, from
the date of the receipt of the application
by the Divisional Forest Officer, the
licence shall be deemed to have been
renewed for a period of three years:

Provided further that the aforesaid
proviso shall not apply to saw mills
situated within ten kilometers of any
existing forest.
Explanation:- In this rule existing forest
shall not include trees situated on either
side of the roads and the railway tracks.

Failure to get the licence renewed
before the expiry of date will make the
licensee
liable
to
punishment
in
accordance with Section 77 of the Indian
Forest Act, 1927 for operating the saw
mills without licence."
4 All] Chaudhary Chandan Singh V. State of U.P. and others
1127

12. The aforesaid Rules along with
the 1998 amendments came up for
consideration before the Supreme Court
in the aforesaid case of T.N. Godavarman
Thirumulkpad on 30th April, 2002 and the
relevant portion of the order is quoted
below:-

"Our attention has been drawn to the
rules which have been amended by the
State of Uttar Pradesh on 6th June, 1998
permitting saw mills having engine power
of 3 HP not to have a licence. This
amendment was made after this Court's
order dated 4th March, 1997 directing
closure of all unlicensed saw mill in the
State of Uttar Pradesh and Maharasthra. It
is quite obvious that with a view to
circumvent this Court's order dated 4th
March, 1997 the State of Uttar Pradesh
has used the device of changing the law.
That this was done with view to help the
saw mills, is quite evident from the
affidavit of Shri Anup Malik Forest
Utilization Officer, U.P. Lucknow who in
paragraph 4 of the affidavits states that
three saw mills, namely M/s. Punjab Saw
Mill, M/s. Rana Saw Mill and M/s. Nur
Handicraft heaving saw mills of 15 HP,
10 HP and 8 HP respectively within the
municipal limits of Saharanpur were
sealed pursuant to the orders of this
Court dated 4th March, 1997. This
affidavit further goes to show that
presently these very saw mills are in
operation using power less than 3 HP. We
refuse to believe that the saw mills which
were having 15 HP, 10 HP, and 8 HP,
would today be functioning using less
than 3 HP. It is only the State of Uttar
Pradesh which can be fallible, willingly,
or unwillingly, to accept this. We,
therefore, set aside the amendment of the
U.P. Establishment and Regulation of
Saw Mills Rules 1978 which was effected
on 26th June, 1998 in so far as it exempts
saw mills using mechanical devices with
the use of power up to 3 HP from
obtaining a licence. As a result of the
order passed today each and every saw
mill running in the State of Uttar Pradesh
would require a licence, whether the saw
mill is running with the aid of power or
otherwise. The rule which provides for
deemed licence in the event of the
application for the grant of licence not
being dealt with contained in the Saw
Mills Rules, being Rule 7, is also held to
be contrary to the letter and spirit of the
Indian Forest Act, and the order of this
Court and is accordingly set aside."

13. On 9th May, 2002 the Supreme
Court issued further directions in the
aforesaid case of T.N. Godavarman
Thirumulkpad and Writ Petition No. 171
of 1996 and the same are as follows:-
"After hearing the learned Amicus
Curie, counsel for the parties and taking
into consideration the suggestions placed
before us by the learned Attorney
General, we pass the following order:-
"(1) It is submitted that till the
Central
Government
constitutes
a
statutory agency as contemplated by
Section 3 of the Environment (Protection)
Act, 1986 it is necessary and expedient
that an authority be constituted at the
National level to be called Central
Empowered Committee (hereinafter the
'Empowered Committee') for monitoring
of implementation of Hon'ble Court's
order and to place the non compliance
cases before it, including in respect of
encroachment removals, implementations
of
working
plans,
Compensatory
afforestation,
plantations
and
other
conservation issues."
1128 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005

14. By a notification dated 3rd June,
2002 the Government constituted the
Central Empowered Committee and the
powers and functions were defined as
follows:-
"The power and functions of the
Committee as per the order of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India are as under:-
.........................................

"(3) Pending
interlocutory
application in these two writ petitions as
well as the report and affidavit filed by
the State in response to the orders made
by the Court shall be examined by the
Committee, and their recommendations
will be placed before Hon'ble Court for
orders.

(4) Any
individual having any
grievance against steps taken by the
Government or any other Authority in
purported compliance with the order
passed by this Hon'ble Court will be at
liberty to move the Committee for seeking
suitable relief. The Committee may
dispose of such applications in conformity
with the orders passed by Hon'ble Court.
Any
application
which
cannot
be
appropriately
disposed
of
by
the
Committee may be referred by it to this
Hon'ble Court.

(5) The Committee shall have the
power to:-
(a) Call for any documents from any
persons of the Government of the
Union or the State or any other
official.
(b) Summon any person and receive
evidence from such person on oath
either on affidavit or otherwise.
(c) Seek assistance/presence of any
person(s) official(s) required by it in
relation to its work."
15.

The
aforesaid
Central
Empowered Committee considered the
cases of those saw mills where the licence
fee had been deposited prior to the
restrictions placed by the Supreme Court
in its order dated 4th March, 1997 but the
licence to operate the saw-mill had not
been issued. It submitted its report dated
3rd October, 2002 and the relevant portion
of the report is as follows:-

"Further as per the Uttar Pradesh
Establishments and Regulations of Saw
Mills Rules, provides that on application
being made, the Divisional Forest Officer
is empowered to grant the licence for any
Saw Mill only after satisfying himself that
the required quantity of timber is
available for the Saw Mill through legal
sources
besides
a
No
Objection
Certificate will have to be obtained by the
applicant Saw Mill from the concerned
District Magistrate. The documents made
available do not establish fulfillment of
this vital requirement. Mere deposition
money for registration does not mean that
a valid licence for running of the Saw
Mill has been granted by the Competent
Authority.
It is, therefore, concluded that the
applicant Saw Mill were not having valid
licence for running the Mill on the
relevant date i.e. 4.3.1997 and were
required to be closed forthwith as per the
order dated 4.3.1997."

16. The matter was again considered
by the Supreme Court on 29/30th October,
2002 and the following order was passed.
"No State or Union Territory shall
permit any unlicensed Saw Mills, veneer,
plywood industry to operate and they are
directed to close all such unlicensed unit
forthwith. No State Government or Union
Territory will permit the opening of any
4 All] Chaudhary Chandan Singh V. State of U.P. and others
1129
Saw Mills, veneer or plywood industry
without prior permission of the Central
Empowered
Committee.
The
Chief
Secretary of each State will ensure strict
compliance of this direction. There shall
also be no relaxation of rules with regard
of licence without previous concurrence
of Central Empowered Committee. It
shall be open to apply to this Court for
relaxation and or appropriate modification
or orders que plantations or grant of
licenses."

17. Despite the aforesaid directions
contained in the order dated 29/30th
October, 2002 certain licences were
granted
to
five
saw-mills
by
the
Divisional Forest Officer, Puri Division,
Khurda, Orissa on 23rd December, 2002.
In these matter the Supreme Court issued
suo motu contempt notice. The following
order was passed by the Supreme Court
on 19th December, 2003 in the said
matter:-

"The
respondent
has
tried
to
overreach this Court by violating the
order dated 30th October, 2002 and is
clearly guilty of contempt of court.
Having regard to the facts abovenoted, we
are unable to accept the apology tendered
by the respondent. Having bestowed
anxious considerations on the aspect of
punishment, considering that respondent
had joined as DFO only few days before
grant of licences and it to being a case of
first lapse on his part, on the facts of the
case, in our view the ends of justice
would be met by reprimanding the
respondent and by issue of a warning to
him so that he will be careful in future so
as not to repeat such an act and also by
imposing on him heavy amount which can
be utilized for protection of environments.
We order accordingly and impose a cost
of Rs.50,000/-, which shall be deposited
by the respondent in the Registry within
four weeks. The suo motu petition is
disposed of accordingly."

18. It is upon a consideration of the
aforesaid provision of the Rules and the
orders of the Supreme Court that the
Regional
Director
has
rejected
the
application of the petitioner for grant of
licence. It has been noticed that the
licence had never been issued in favour of
the petitioner prior to 4th March, 1997 but
even without the issue of such licence the
petitioner had been depositing the licence
fee. It has further been noticed that the
Central Empowered Committee in its
recommendations
placed
before
the
Supreme Court had made it clear that the
licence cannot be granted merely upon
deposit of the licence fee and in such
circumstances, the petitioner cannot take
the benefit of the decision given by this
Court in Nand Lal Vs. State of U.P. &
Ors,. 2002 ALJ 1255. The Regional
Director has also referred to the directions
issued by the Supreme Court that no State
Government or the Union of India shall
permit the opening of saw-mill without
prior
permission
of
the
Central
Empowered
Committee.
In
such
circumstances the Regional Director has
concluded that the licence could not be
issued but it has been observed that in
case the petitioner desired he could place
his
application
before
the
Central
Empowered Committee.

19. It is this order dated 6th April,
2005 of the Regional Director which has
been challenged in this writ petition. The
petitioner in person has placed reliance
upon the decision of the Supreme Court in
the case of Jawahar Lal Sharma & Anr.
Vs. Divisional Forest Officer, U.P. &
1130 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
Anr., JT 2002 (1) SC 413, and upon the
decision of this Court in Nand Lal Vs.
State of U.P. & Ors., 2002 All. L.J. 1255.

20. In the case of Jawahar Lal
Sharma (supra) the Supreme Court in
paragraph 6 of the said decision observed
as follows:-

"No order or direction made by the
Supreme Court of India to the effect that
even existing licences shall not be
renewed, has been brought to our notice.
On the contrary, the learned counsel for
the appellants has invited our attention to
orders dated 24.01.2000 passed in Civil
Misc.
Writ
Petition
No.
991/2000,
Gyaneshwar Prasad Singh Vs. Van
Sanrakshak, Varanasi Vritya, Varanasi &
Ors., order dated 19.02.2000 in Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 9148 of 2000,
Kanwal Deen Chauhan and Ors. Vs.
Conservator of Forests and Ors., order
dated 31.3.2000 in Civil Misc. Writ
Petition
No.
15002/2000,
Vishwa
Bhandar Saw Mills Vs. Divisional Forest
Officer & Anr., wherein having noticed
the directions made by this Court in T.N.
Godavaraman Thirumulkpad Vs. Union
of India & Ors., [(1997) 3 SCC 312], the
High Court of Allahabad has, in similar
circumstances quashed the orders passed
by the respondents and directed that on
completing all the necessary formalities
by the petitioners therein and depositing
the licence renewal fee for all the
previous years as well as the current
years, licences to run the saw mill in
favour of the petitioner therein shall be
granted of there be no legal impediment.
The learned counsel submitted that there
is no reason why the same High Court
should not have taken a similar view in
the cases of these appellants. We find
merit in the submission of the learned
counsel."

21. It is clear from the observations
made
above
that
the
subsequent
orders/directions of the Supreme Court
were not placed before the Court. We
have referred to the orders/directions of
the Supreme Court which make it
mandatory for the licensee to place his
application before the Central Empowered
Committee for grant of licence.

In the case of Nand lal (supra) the
Court observed as follows:-

"The Apex Court was only clarifying
that no fresh licence should be granted in
violation of the provisions of the Forest
Conservation Act, 1980. It did not
prohibit that licence to operate saw mills
should not be granted on any condition."

22. The decision of this Court in the
case of Nand Lal have also not taken note
of the subsequent orders/directions of the
Supreme Court in the case of T.N.
Godavaraman Thirumulkpad (supra).

23. In the present case the licence of
the saw mill of the petitioner had not been
renewed prior to 4th March, 1997. The
directions of the Supreme Court make it
obligatory
in
such
cases,
for
the
applicants to place their application
before
the
Central
Empowered
Committee. This is precisely what has
been observed in the order of the
Regional Director.

24. Such being the position, there is
no infirmity in the order dated 6th April,
2005 passed by the Regional Director
rejecting the application filed by the
petitioner for grant of saw mill licence.
4 All] DCM Shriram Industries Ltd. V. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another
1131

25. The writ petition is, accordingly,
dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.11.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHISHIR KUMAR, J.

Civil misc. Writ Petition No. 42735 of 2000

DCM Shriram Industrial Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
Preseding Officer Labour Court-II and
another

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vivek Saran

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Ashok Khare
Sri V.S.Chaudhary
Sri Vinod Kumar Singh
S.C.

Constitution
of
India
Art-34
(2)
Dismissal order-copy of enquiry report
given much after the punishment-second
time no-enquiry conducted-Labour Court
being the last court of facts-recorded
specific finding that due sale of motor
cycle management suffered any financial
loss-substitution of order of punishment
with stoppage of two increments-heldproper.

Held: Para 9

The Labour Court being the last Court of
fact after consideration of the evidence
on the record has come to the conclusion
that
the
order
of
dismissal
is
disproportionate
to
the
offence
committed by the workman, as such has
substitute the punishment of dismissal
by stoppage of two increments. The
punishment of dismissal is a major
punishment; as such the disciplinary
authority
while
awarding
the
punishment; as such the disciplinary
authority
while
awarding
the
punishment of dismissal should have
stated
the
reasons.
The
basis
of
punishment
should
have
been
incorporated in the order of punishment.
As
the
same
has
not
been
done,
therefore, in view of the judgment
reported in 1997 (77) F.L.R. Page 863,
the
Labour
Court
was
justified
in
modifying the punishment of dismissal
into stoppage of two increments.
Case law discussed:
1990 (61) SLR-736
2004 (27) SCC-581
1993 (67) FLR-1230
2005 (3) SCC-254
2000 (9) SCC-521
2000 (7) SCC-517
1997 ALJ-88
2005 (L & S) SCC-631
2005 (SCC) L & S 270

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shishir Kumar, J.)

1. The present writ petition has been
filed for quashing the Labour Court award
dated 23.2.2000 published on 24.8.2000,
Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

2. The facts arising out of the
present petition are that the petitioner is a
registered company under the Companies
Act having its registered office at 18,
Barahkhambha
Road,
kunchanjinga
Building, New Delhi and is having a
sugar unit known as Daurala Sugar works,
district Meerut. Respondent no. 2 was
appointed
on
2.12.1987
as
Cane
Development Supervisor. His service
conditions were governed by the Standing
Orders governing the conditions of
employment of workmen in vacuum Pan
Sugar Factories of Uttar Pradesh. The said
Standing Order were in force under the
government
Notification
dated
3rd
October, 1958. Respondent no. 2 was
charge-sheeted on 9.5.1990 for fraud,