# Smt. Manu Kumari v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 6 ILRA 249
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-20
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Birla, Vikas Budhwar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-manu-kumari-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48656
- **Pages:** 17

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Indian Forest Act, 1927 - UP
Establishment and Regulation of Saw Mills
Rules, 1978 - R. 3(1) - Establishment of
Saw Mill - Rule imposes the condition that
the Mill should not be within 10 kms of the
forest - Non-fulfillment of the condition -
Effect - Notice issued requiring the
petitioner to remove Saw Mill - Legality
challenged - Held, the relief so claimed by
the petitioner cannot be granted to it as
admittedly the petitioner's Saw Mill is
within 10 kms of the forest land and the
said fact has also not been disputed by the
petitioner. (Para 10, 15 and 17)
Writ petition dismissed (E-1)
List of Cases cited :-

## Text

6 All. Smt. Manu Kumari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
249
as to make it accessible to general public
making them aware about rights and the
privileges so conferred upon them.

(e) Once the Parliament of India has
enacted the Code on Wages 2019 (No.29 of
2019), which has received the assent of the
President and has been Gazetted on
8.8.2019 providing for amending and
consolidating the law relating to wages and
bonus and matters connected thereto and
incidental thereto, then in view of the
provisions contained under Sub-Section 3
of Section 1 of the Code on Wages 2019,
this Court hopes and trust that the Central
Government will expeditiously take steps
to enforce the provisions of the Code on
Wages, 2019.
----------
(2022)06ILR A249
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Writ-C No. 25042 OF 2011

Smt. Manu Kumari ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rahul Sahai

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Indian Forest Act, 1927 - UP
Establishment and Regulation of Saw Mills
Rules, 1978 - R. 3(1) - Establishment of
Saw Mill - Rule imposes the condition that
the Mill should not be within 10 kms of the
forest - Non-fulfillment of the condition -
Effect - Notice issued requiring the
petitioner to remove Saw Mill - Legality
challenged - Held, the relief so claimed by
the petitioner cannot be granted to it as
admittedly the petitioner's Saw Mill is
within 10 kms of the forest land and the
said fact has also not been disputed by the
petitioner. (Para 10, 15 and 17)
Writ petition dismissed (E-1)
List of Cases cited :-
1. T.N Godavarman Thirumulkpad Vs U.O.I. &
ors. (1997) 5 SCC 760
2. Pradeep Kumar Saxena Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
2015 (7) ADJ 615
(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,
J. & Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar, J.)

1. Today when the matter was taken
up a request was made on behalf of the Sri
Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the
petitioner
for
adjourning
the
matter.
However, this Court finds that present
petition is of the year 2011 and the
petitioner has not been able to obtain any
interim order.

2. Accordingly, present writ petition is
being decided on the basis of pleadings so
available on record and after hearing Sri
Sharad
Srivastava,
learned
Standing
Counsel.

3. This is a petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of India seeking
following reliefs:-

"1. Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of certiorari for quashing the
impugned order dated 4.4.2011 passed by
the respondent no. 4 vide Patrank No.
4126/22-18 (Annexure-1 to the Writ
Petition).
250 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus commanding and
directing the respondent authorities not to
interfere in the peaceful running and
functioning of the Saw Mill of the
petitioner situated at Lalpur, Chitaula,
Arniya, Bulandhshahar."

4. Perusal of relief as sought in the
present writ petition reveals that the
petitioner herein is challenging the order /
notice dated 4.4.2011 issued by the fourth
respondent, whereby the petitioner was
required to shift its Saw Mill within a
period of seven days. Further relief has also
been sought in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents herein not to
interfere in the peaceful running and
functioning of the Saw Mill of the
petitioner situated at Lalpur, Chitaula,
Arniya, Bulandhshahar.

5. As per the pleading so set forth in
the present writ petition, which reveals that
the petitioner was running the abovenoted
Saw Mill with one Madan Pal Singh s/o
Hardev Singh since 1987. A license to the
said effect was issued in favour of Sri
Madan Pal Singh bearing No. 205/2003
Arniya. It has also been pleaded that an
agreement was also entered between the
petitioner and Madan Pal Singh. However,
as stated in paragraph 5 of the writ petition
on 16.11.2004 Sri Madan Pal Singh s/o
Hardev Singh transferred the license in
favour of the petitioner. A copy of the
license
dated
16.11.2004
has
been
appended as Annexure-2 at page 21 of the
paperbook in which there is a specific
condition mentioned therein that the Saw
Mill should not fall within 10 kms of
existing forest.

6. Sofar as the procedure and the
manner according to which licenses as well
as ancillary and incidental issues are to be
governed with respect of Saw Mills it is
clearly provided by the Rule by name and
the
nomenclature
of
Uttar
Pradesh
Establishment and Regulation of Saw Mills
Rules, 1978, which has been enacted in
exercise of the powers under Clause (a) of
Section 51-A of the Indian Forest Act,
1927.

7. As a matter of fact, in the case of
T.N Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs.
Union of India and others (1997) 5 SCC
760 the Hon'ble Apex Court in proceedings
under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India in Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995
had issued certain directions vide order
dated 8.5.1997, however, sofar as the same
pertains to state of Uttar Pradesh. The same
is being quoted as under:-

"1. 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. The Principal Chief Conservator of
Forest (PCCF) may, on a case-to-case basis,
consider grant of permission to an existing
licensed saw mill to relocate itself,
provided that the relocated site is not within
10 kms of any existing forest.

2. To alleviate the unintended hardship
which may be caused to the ordinary
populace in the hill areas who need forest
produce for their survival, it is clarified as
under:-

(a) Nothing contained in the orders
passed by this Court would prevent the U.P.
Forest
Corporation
from
directly
undertaking the exercise of collecting forest
produce including fallen wood (but not any
felling or cutting of trees or timber) to the
extent strictly necessary, and disturbing the
6 All. Smt. Manu Kumari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
251
same ex depot to the people living in the
hill areas.
(b) The Forest Corporation
may, with the prior permission of the
PCCF, remove dead or dry trees for supply
in the same manner ex depot to people
residing in those areas. The Forest
Corporation shall (i) undertake
such
activity itself without engaging any outside
agencies, and (ii) keep an account of the
dead and dry trees felled and removed by
them, and shall by way of an affidavit file
the same in this Court."

8. In pursuance of the directions so
issued by the Hon'ble Hon'ble Apex Court
in the abovequoted decision on 8.5.1997 it
was mandated that the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forest (PCCF) may on
case-to-case
basis
consider
grant
of
permission to an existing license Saw Mill
to relocate itself provided that the relocated
existing area is not within 10 kms of any
existing forest.

9. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, it
appears
that
the
respondents
herein
conducted survey for the purposes of
determining the distance of the existing
Saw Mill vis-a-vis the forest area so
earmarked therein. It is come on record that
on 28.2.2011 a communication has been
issued
under
the
signature
of
the
respondent no. 2 addressed to Forest
Conservator and Regional Director Forest,
Meerut Area, Meerut, which is Annexure-9
to the writ petition at page 57 of the
paperbook, wherein the details of the
petitioner finds place at Sl. No. 11,
according to which it is just 6.47 kms
within the area earmarked as forest.

10. Consequently, a notice was issued
on 4.4.2011, which is under challenge, by
the respondent no. 4 requiring the petitioner
to remove the Saw Mill, which is existing
as continuance of the same would be in
defiance of the orders / directions issued by
the Hon'ble Apex Court.

11. Challenging the same, now the
petitioner is before this Court.

12. This Court on 4.5.2011 connected
the present petition with Writ C No. 23131
of 2011 (Subhash Chandra And Others vs.
State of U.P. and others) in which on
22.4.2011 the following order was passed:-

"Connect and list this petition with
Writ Petition 23131 of 2011."

13. Subsequently, Writ C No. 23131
of 2011 (Subhash Chandra And Others vs.
State of U.P. and others) came to be
dismissed vide order dated 22.11.2018 on
the ground that as now no cause of action
survives.
The
aforesaid
order
dated
22.11.2018 is also quoted as under:-

"Heard Sri R. K. Sharma, learned
counsel for the petitioners and learned
Standing Counsel for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners Sri
R. K. Sharma submits that he does not wish
to press the writ petition as no cause of
action now survives.

The writ petition is, accordingly,
dismissed."

14. This Court further finds that Uttar
Pradesh Establishment and Regulation of
Saw
Mill
Rules,
1978
under
went
amendment on 4.12.2017 the Uttar Pradesh
Establishment and Regulation of Saw Mills
(6th Amendment) Rules, 2017 have come
into existence. The aforesaid amended
Rules 2017 are quoted as under:-

"Uttar Pradesh Shasan

Van Avam Vanya Jeev Anubhag-2
252 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

The Governor is pleased to order the
publication of the following English
translation of Notification no. 2903 /14-22017-165G/2017, dated 04 December, 2017
for general information.

NOTIFICATION

No. 2903 /14-2-2017-165G/2017

Lucknow, Dated 04 December, 2017

In exercise of the powers under clause
(a) of section 51-A of the Indian Forest Act,
1927 (Act no. 16 of 1927), read with
section 21 of the General Clauses Act,
1897, (Act no. X of 1897), the Governor is
pleased to make the following rules with a
view to amending the Uttar Pradesh
Establishment and Regulation of Saw Mills
Rules, 1978 :-

THE
UTTAR
PRADESH
ESTABLISHMENT
AND
REGULATION
OF
SAW
MILLS
(SIXTH AMENDMENT) RULES, 2017

Short title
and
Commenc
ement

1 (1) These rules may
be called the Uttar
Pradesh Establishment
and Regulation of Saw
Mills
(Sixth
Amendment)
Rules,
2017.
(2) They shall extend to
the whole of Uttar
Pradesh.
(3) They shall come
into force with effect
from the date of their
publication
in
the
official
General
Amendm
ent

2. In the Uttar Pradesh
Establishment
and
Regulation
of
Saw
Mills
Rules,
1978,
hereinafter referred to
as the said rules for the
words
"Establishment
and Regulation of Saw
Mills"
the
words
"Wood-Based
Industries
(Establishment
and
Regulation)", wherever
occurring
including
heading
shall
be
substituted.
Amendm
ent
of
rules 2 to
12

3. In the said rules for
rules, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5A, 6,
7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 11A and
12 set out in column-1
below the rules as set
out in column-2 shall
be
substituted
,
namely:-
Column-1
Existing rules

Column-2

Rules
as
hereby
substituted
Definition
s
2.
In
these
rules, unless the
context
otherwise
requires :-
(a) "Saw mills"
means
and
includes
any
mechanical
devices whether
operating with
electric power,
fuelpower
or
man power for
the purpose of
cutting, sawing
or
converting
timber
and
wood
into
pieces or the
like acts, but
shall
not
include
such
mechanical
devices whose
engine power is
up to 3 H.P.*
(*Substituted
by Notification
No. 4219/14-298405(209)96TC
II
dated
Definiti
ons
2. (1) In these
rules, unless
the context
otherwise
requires :-
(a) ''Industrial
Estate' means
areas notified
by the State
Government
for
establishment
of
Wood
Based
Industries.
(b) ''License'
means
a
license
granted under
the
rules
notified
by
the State in
pursuance of
these Rules.
(c) ''Principal
Chief
Conservator
of
Forests'
means
a
Forest officer
of the rank of
Principal
Chief
6 All. Smt. Manu Kumari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
253
26.06.1998)
(b) 'One unit of
saw-mill' shall
be
taken
as
equivalent to 25
H.P. engine or
any
part
thereof. (Thus a
saw mill using
65 H.P. engines
will be deemed
as equivalent to
3 units).
Conservator
of Forests and
it
also
includes
an
officer
designated as
a
Head
of
Forest
Department
in the State.
(d)
''Round
log' means a
piece of wood
in its natural
form, having
mid girth of
thirty
centimeter or
more
under
bark and it
includes such
round
log
even after its
bark has been
removed
or
its surface has
been dressed,
manually
or
by using a
band saw or
any
other
machine
or
equipment to
make its cross
section
square
or
near-square
for
the
purpose
of
ease
in
its
transportation
and/or
storage.
(e)
''Saw
Mill', means
plants
and
machinery in
a
fixed
structure
or
enclosure, for
conversion of
round
logs
into
sawn
timber.
(f)
''Sawn
timber' means
beams,
scantlings,
planks,
battens
and
such
other
product
obtained from
sawing of a
round log.
(g)
''State
Level
Committee'
means
a
Committee
constituted by
the
State
Government
under para 12
(i) of these
Rules.
(h)
''wood
based
industry'
means
any
industry
which
processes
wood as its
raw material
(Saw
mills/veneer/
plywood
or
any
other
form such as
sandal, katha
wood etc.).
(2) Words and
expressions
used but not
defined under
these
Rules
and
defined
in the Indian
Forest
Act,
1927 or the
relevant local
Forest Act as
applicable in
the State, and
the
Rules
framed there
under
shall
have
the
meaning
254 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
assigned
to
them in such
Act or Rules.
(3) In case of
any
dispute
regarding
interpretation
of any word
or expression,
the
decision
of
the
Ministry
of
Environment,
Forest
and
Climate
Change shall
be final.
Restrictio
n
of
Establish
ment
of
Saw Mills
3.Within
the
limits of any
reserved
or
protected
forests
and
within a radius
of
80
Kilometers
of
such limits No
person
shall
establish, erect
or operate any
saw
mill
or
machinery
for
converting
or
cutting
timber
and
wood
obtaining
a
license from the
Divisional
Forest
Officer
concerned.*
*Substituted by
Notification
No.
1117/XIV-3-3273 dated June
6,1990
Restrict
ion on
location
of
Wood
Based
Industri
es
3-
(1)
In
respect
of
distance from
the boundary
of
nearest
notified
forests
or
protected
areas, Wood
Based
Industries
shall
be
allowed
to
operate as per
State-specific
order/approva
l
of
the
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court/Hon'ble
High Court of
the concerned
state/Central
Empowered
Committee:
or,
beyond
ten
kilometres of
aerial
distance from
the boundary
of
nearest
notified
forests
or
protected
areas,
excluding
roadside/rail
way
side/canal
side
plantations,
whichever is
less.
(2) A Wood
Based
Industries can
be established
in
an
industrial
Estate or a
Municipal
area,
irrespective
of the aerial
distance from
the boundary
of
nearest
notified forest
or
protected
area.
Applicati
on
for
obtaining
license
4. Any person
desiring
to
establish, erect
or operate any
existing
saw
mill shall make
an
application
in that behalf to
the
Divisional
Forest
Officer
concerned
for
obtaining
a
license in the
form given in
the Schedule I
appended
to
these Rules.
Applica
tion for
obtainin
g
license
4- Any person
desiring
to
establish,
erect
or
operate
any
wood
based
industry shall
make
an
application in
that behalf to
the
State
Level
Committee
for obtaining
a license in eformat
prescribed by
the
State
Level
Committee.
The
application
shall be made
and disposed
off
through
online system
only
as
developed by
U.P.
Forest
Department
6 All. Smt. Manu Kumari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
255
on behalf of
State
Level
Committee.
No
application
shall
be
disposed off
manually.
This
online
system shall
be developed
to
facilitate
public
viewing and
tracking
status
of
application
and
their
disposal.
Grant of
license
5. 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 license in
the form given
in Schedule II
appended
to
these Rules:-
(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
Grant
of
license
5- On receipt
of
an
application
under rule 4,
the
State
Level
Committee
shall
acknowledge
the same and
thereafter
shall
make
such
enquiries as it
may deem fit
and
after
satisfying
itself
State
Level
Committee
shall approve
the
license.
After
approval
from the State
Level
Committee
the Divisional
Forest Officer
shall grant the
license, in the
format
prescribed by
the
State
Level
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
license;
(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"
from
the
District
Magistrate
concerned
for
erecting
and
running the saw
mill, In case the
Divisional
Forest
Officer
is not satisfied
he may reject
the application.
Committee,
through
online system
only. In case,
the
State
Level
Committee is
not satisfied,
it may reject
the
application.
The applicant
must
have
facility
to
track status of
the
application
thereof
and
receive
the
license
or
rejection
through
online system
only.
Relocation
of
Saw
Mills
5A-
The
Principal Chief
Conservator of
Forests,
Uttar
Pradesh, on an
application and
after
such
Relocation
of
Wood
Based
Industri
es
5A-
Any
person
desiring
to
relocate
any
wood
based
industry shall
give
an
256 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
inquiry as he
deems fit, may
order
for
Relocation
of
an existing Saw
mill from one
place to another
within
the
State.
application to
the Divisional
Forest Officer
or equivalent
officer
concerned in
regard to relocation.
Divisional
Forest Officer
or equivalent
officer as the
case may be
on the receipt
of
an
application
shall give his
comments to
Conservator
of
Forests/Zonal
Chief
Conservator
of
Forests
who
may
submit
the
application
along with his
comments to
the
State
Level
Committee,
which
may
enquire, or if
it deems right
may allow relocation
of
wood
based
industry from
one place to
another.
Period of
validity
of license
6
-
Every
license granted
under rule 5 or
renewed under
rule
7
shall
remain valid for
such period not
exceeding five
year from the
date of issue or
renewal as may
be specified in
the
license.
Period
of
validity
of
license
6- Any Wood
Based
Industries
license
granted shall
remain valid
for
such
period
not
exceeding
five
year
from the date
of issue or
renewal
as
Provided that in
case
of
a
license referred
to
in
the
proviso to rule
5 or rule 7 the
period
of
validity shall be
five year.
may
be
specified
in
the license.
Renewal
of license
7-
On
the
application
made
to
the
Divisional
Forest
Officer
concerned
for
renewal of the
license granted
under rule 5, he
may renew the
same indicating
thereon
the
period
for
which
it
has
been renewed.
The
renewed
application for
license shall be
disposed
off
within
sixty
days
of
its
receipt.
Provided that in
case
the
application
is
not disposed off
within
sixty
days, from the
date
of
the
receipt of the
application by
the
Divisional
Forest Officer,
the license shall
be deemed to
have
been
renewed for a
period of three
years:

Provided
further
that
aforesaid
proviso
shall
not
apply
to
saw
mills
Grant
or
renewal
of
a
license
to
a
wood
based
industry
7- No license
to
a
wood
based
industry shall
be granted or
renewed
without
obtaining
prior
approval
of
the
State
Level
Committee.
However,
a
State
Level
Committee
may delegate
the power of
renewal
of
license to a
wood
based
industry
to
the Divisional
Forest
Officers
of
the concerned
Forest
Divisions.
The renewal
of
license
shall be done
through
online system
only.
6 All. Smt. Manu Kumari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
257
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
license
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
mill
without license.
Revocatio
n of the
license
8Notwithstandin
g
anything
contained in the
foregoing
Rules,
the
Divisional
Forest
Officer
concerned may,
where he has
reason
to
believe that a
licensee
is
operating
the
saw
mill
in
contravention
of
the
provisions
of
these Rules or
conditions
of
license or the
licensee
is
involved
in
activities
Revocat
ion
of
the
license
8-
Notwithstandi
ng
anything
contained in
the foregoing
Rules,
the
Divisional
Forest Officer
concerned
may,
where
he has reason
to believe that
a licensee is
operating
wood
based
industry
in
contravention
of
the
provisions of
these Rules or
conditions of
license or the
licensee
is
involved
in
prejudicial
to
the interests of
forest
conservancy at
any time, after
giving
revoke
the
license
granted
under
rule
5
or
renewed under
rule 7.
activities
prejudicial to
the
interests
of
forest
conservancy
at any time,
revoke
the
license
granted after
giving
one
month notice.
Procedure
of
renewal
nonrenewal
or
revocatio
n
of
license
9- Where the
concerned
Divisional
Forest
Officer
refuses to issue
or renew the
license, he shall
send intimation
thereof to the
applicant or the
holder of the
license, as the
case may be
giving reasons
therefore.

Appeal
against
refusal to
issue
or
renew or
revoke
license
10- Any person
aggrieved by an
order
of
the
Divisional
Forest
Officer
under rule 9,
may within 30
days
of
the
service of the
order on him,
appeal to the
concerned
Conservator of
Forests.
The
Conservator of
forest
there
upon
shall
decide
the
appeal
after
giving
the
Divisional
Forest
Officer
and
or
appellant,
an
opportunity of
being
heard.
The decision of
Appeal
against
revocati
on
of
license
9- Any person
aggrieved by
an order of
the Divisional
Forest Officer
under rule 8,
may
within
30 days of the
service of the
order on him,
appeal to the
concerned
Conservator
of
Forests/Zonal
Chief
Conservator
of Forests.
The
Conservator
of
Forests/Zonal
Chief
Conservator
of
Forests
there
upon
shall
decide
the
appeal
258 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Conservator
of
Forest
on
such
appeal
shall be final.
after
giving
the Divisional
Forest Officer
and
or
appellant, an
opportunity
of
being
heard.
The
decision
of
the
Conservator
of
Forests/Zonal
Chief
Conservator
of Forests on
such
appeal
shall be final.
Fees
for
grant and
renewal
of license
11-
Fees
for
grant
and
renewal
of
license-
An
annual fee for
grant
or
renewal
of
licenses
per
unit shall be
payable by the
applicants/
licensees
as
below:-
Unit Annu
al fee
Saw
Mill
Rs.
25,00
0/-
per
unit
Vene
er
Rs.
25,00
0/-
per
unit
Plyw
ood
Rs.
50,00
0/-
Vene
er &
Plyw
ood
Rs.
75,00
0/-
per
unit
Fees for
grant
and
renewal
of
license
10-
Annual
fees
for
applicants/lic
ense
holder
shall be paid
by them as
per decisions
taken by State
Level
Committee
from time to
time. The fees
shall
be
deposited
online only.
A relocation fee
per
unit
for
transfer of saw
mill/veneer/ply
wood unit shall
be payable by
the applicants/
licensees
as
below:-

Propos
e
relocat
ed site
Fee

Rural
area
 Rs.
50,0
00/-
Distric
t
Headq
uarter
Rs,
1,00
,000
/-
Comm
issione
ry
Headq
uarter
Rs.
2,00
,000
/-
Mahan
agar
area
Rs.
5,00
,000
/-
6 All. Smt. Manu Kumari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
259
Power of
exempt
from the
provision
and Rules
11A. Where the
State
Government is
satisfied
that
the operation of
the
timber
based
industries, such
as,
Plywood
Mill,
Veneer
Mill,
Katha
industries,
Paper and Pulp
industries
and
Cooling towers
manufacturing
industries
and
like
industries
whose
final
product is not
timber and also
the machinery
used
as
saw
mills
are
integral parts of
their production
process, is not
possible due to
application
of
all or any of the
provisions
of
these rules, the
State
Government
may,
by
notifications,
for reasons to
be
recorded,
exempt
such
industries from
the operation of
such
rules
subject to such
conditions, as it
may deem fit,
for
the
conservation of
the tree-growth
in the forests
under
the
control of the
Government
and in the areas
adjacent
thereto.
Constit
ution of
the
State
Level
Commit
tee

11- (1) State
Level
Committee
shall consist
of
the
following
members
a Prin
cipa
l
Chi
ef
Con
serv
ator
of
For
ests
/He
ad
of
For
est
Dep
art
men
t
C
ha
ir
pe
rs
o
n
b A
repr
ese
ntat
ive
of
the
Reg
iona
l
Offi
ce
of
the
Min
istr
y of
Env
iron
men
t,
For
est
and
Cli
mat
e
M
e
m
be
r

Cha
nge
c A
repr
ese
ntat
ive
of
the
Stat
e
For
est
Dep
art
men
t
not
belo
w
the
ran
k of
a
Con
serv
ator
of
For
ests
deal
ing
wit
h
pre
para
tion
of
Wor
kin
g
Pla
ns/
Wor
kin
g
M
e
m
be
r
d Dir
ecto
r/A
ddit
iona
l
Dir
M
e
m
be
r
260 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ecto
r of
Dep
art
men
t of
Ind
ustr
ies
e Rep
rese
ntat
ive
of
the
For
est
Dev
elop
men
t
Cor
por
atio
n
M
e
m
be
r
f An
offi
cer
not
belo
w
the
ran
k of
Con
serv
ator
of
For
ests
wor
kin
g in
the
For
est
Hea
d
Qua
rter
s
M
e
m
be
r
S
ec
re
ta
ry
(2) The State
Level
Committee
may
co-opt
an
officer
from
Territorial
wing of the
Forest
Department
not below the
rank
of
Conservator
of Forest and
officers from
Department
of Agriculture
and
Department
of Revenue of
the
State
Government.
(3) The State
Level
Committee
shall meet at
least once in
three months.
(4)
The
quorum of the
State
Level
Committee
meeting shall
be
at
least
fifty percent
of
these
members.
(5)
State
Level
Committee
will
invite
one
representative
of
the
industry
nominated by
the saw-mill
association as
a
special
invitee
to
every
meeting
of
the
State
Level
Committee.
Savings
12-
Nothing Powers 12- The State
6 All. Smt. Manu Kumari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
261
contained
in
these
Rules
shall apply to
the
ordinary
operations
of
domestic
carpentry or to
other
similar
works on smallscale.
and
functio
ns
of
the
State
Level
Commit
tee
Level
Committee
State
Level
Committee
shall:-
(a)
assess
the
availability of
timber in the
State by way
of appropriate
study
in
demand
and
supply as and
when
it
decide. State
Level
Committee
shall
devise
suitable
mechanism
for
sustainable
use of timber
in a way that
does
not
affect
the
forests of the
area
adversely;
(b)
approve
the names of
Wood Based
Industries
which may be
considered
for grant of
fresh license
or
enhancement
of
the
existing
licensed
capacity
in
case the State
Level
Committee is
satisfied that
timber
is
available
legally for the
said
new
Wood Based
Industries
(such as Trees
outside forest,
Forests etc.);
(c)
ensure
that
the
amount lying
with
the
respective
State
Forest
Department
(recovered
from
Wood
Based
Industries) is
utilized
for
the
purpose
of
afforestation
only;
(d)
examine
and
make
appropriate
recommendat
ions or any
other
matter
referred to by
the
State
Government
to
the
Ministry
of
Environment,
Forest
and
Climate
Change.

Appeal
against
the
decisio
n of the
State
Level
Commit
tee
13 (1) Any
person
aggrieved by
the
decision
taken by the
State
Level
Committee
may file an
appeal before
the concerned
Regional
Office of the
Central
Government
in
the
Ministry
of
Environment,
Forest
and
Climate
Change
seeking
appropriate
262 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
relief within
60 days.
(2) Head of
Regional
Office
shall
within
60
days of filing
the
appeal
pass
appropriate
order.
(3) If, for any
reason,
any
person
is
aggrieved by
the orders so
passed in the
appeal,
he
may prefer an
appropriate
petition/appli
cation/ appeal
in the High
Court.

Records
to
be
maintai
ned by
Wood
Based
Industri
es
14-
Each
wood
based
industry shall
maintain and
regularly
update
records
as
prescribed by
State
Level
Committee.

Savings 15-
Industries/pro
cessing plants
not
using
round logs of
domestic
origin
or
operating
without
a
band saw or
re-saw
or
circular
saw
of more than
thirty
centimeter
diameter shall
not
require
license.
(a)
Sawn timber,
cane,
bamboo,
reed,
plywood,
veneers
or
imported
wood,
procured for
legitimate
sources.
(b)
Block
board, MDF
or
similar
wood-based
products,
procured
from
legitimate
sources.
(c)
Round
log/timber
form species
declared
as
agroforestry/agric
ultural crops
and/or
exempted
from
the
purview
of
the
felling
and
transit
regime in the
State,
and
procured
form
legitimate
sources.
However,
State
Level
Committee of
the State may
allow
installation of
circular
saw
of
diameter
upto
60
centimeter in
such
industries
having
specialized
requirement.
Such
industries
shall
be
6 All. Smt. Manu Kumari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
263
registered
with
the
Forest
Department
of the State
and shall be
regulated,
details
of
which are to
be prescribed
by the State.
Transfer
of
license
on
sale/successio
n etc shall be
done
only
with
the
approval
of
State
Level
Committee.

By Order,

(Renuka Kumar)
Principal Secretary"

15. As per the amended Rule 3(1) the
restriction with regard to establishment of
Saw Mill is to be not within 10 kms of the
forest. Here as per the onshowing of the
petitioner as apparent from the document
dated 16.11.2004 for transferring the license
in favour of the petitioner, wherein one of the
condition was to the extent that Saw Mill
should not be within 10 kms of the forest and
moreover a communication dated 28.2.2011,
which has been the basis for passing of the
order dated 4.4.2011 has also not been
challenged by the petitioner, which itself
shows that the distance of the petitioner's Saw
Mill is 6.47 kms from the forest, which is
within the restricted area. It has also come on
record as per onshowing of the petitioner in
paragraph 11 of the writ petition that the
license of the petitioner had been extended
for the period from February, 2010 to
31.12.2010 and there is nothing to show that
the same has been extended beyond that.

16. A Division Bench of this Court
had an occasion to consider the said
contingency that certain existing Saw Mill
was within 10 kms of the forest and this
Court after considering the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T.N
Godavarman Thirumulkpad (supra) had
proceeded
to
pass
the
order
dated
21.7.2015 in the case of Pradeep Kumar
Saxena vs. State of U.P. and others, 2015
(7) ADJ 615 , which reads as under:-

"In these proceedings, the petitioner
has called into question an order dated 3
December 2011 passed by the Principal
Chief Conservator of Forest, holding that
the licence granted to the petitioner for
conducting a saw mill stands cancelled
since the distance between the saw mill and
the reserved forest is 4.66 kms. However,
liberty was granted to the petitioner, should
he desire to relocate the saw mill beyond
the distance of 10 kilometres, to submit a
fresh application for consideration.

The basis of the order of the Principal
Chief Conservator of Forest was a direction
issued by the Supreme Court in T N
Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of
India1. Insofar as is material to these
proceedings, the direction issued by the
Supreme Court is as follows:

"A. In the State of Uttar Pradesh the
following is permitted -

1. The Principal Chief Conservator of
Forest (PCCF) may, on a case-to-case basis,
consider grant of permission to an existing
licensed saw mill to relocate itself,
provided that the relocated site is not within
10 kms of any existing forest."

In the counter affidavit filed by the
Principal Chief Conservator of Forest on 28
February 2012, it has been stated that the
petitioner purchased a saw mill licence
bearing
47/92/Atrauli
and
by
a
communication dated 30 November 2004
264 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the Principal Chief Conservator of
Forest, the saw mill was relocated to plot
no.99, khasra 382 Quarsi Road, Ram Ghat,
Aligarh with a condition that the relocated
site should not be within 10 kms from an
existing forest. The Divisional Forest
Officer, Aligarh issued a saw mill licence
No.64/2009 on 6 September 2009. The
Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, by a
letter dated 29 April 2011, reiterated that in
view of the order of the Supreme Court
dated 8 May 1997, the relocated saw mill
should not be within 10 kms from the
existing forest. The saw mill of the
petitioner was found to be within 4.66 kms
from the nearest forest block on the basis of
the following GPS data:

Divisio
n
Name of
Saw Mill
owner
GPS
reading of
relocated
saw mill
GPS
reading
of
nearest
forest
block
Distance
from
nearest
forest
block (in
Km)
Aligarh Pradeep
Kumar
Saxena
27°54'64.
0"N
078°06'59
.5"E
27°57'3
6.6"N
78°5'3.
30"E
4.66 Km

It has been stated in the counter
affidavit that the Divisional Forest Officer
has afforded sufficient opportunity to the
petitioner for a personal hearing and to
present a written statement by a letter dated
20 May 2011. In response to the letter, the
petitioner presented a written statement on
27 May 2011. A personal hearing was also
held on 27 May 2011. It was found that the
petitioner had not substantiated the case
that the saw mill was not located within 10
kms from the nearest Chherat forest block
or that it was outside the limits of the Nagar
Nigam. Following this, the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forest, revoked the order
dated 30 November 2004 on 21 November
2011. While directing a closure of the
operation of the saw mill, it has been
provided that in case, the saw mill owner is
willing to shift his saw mill beyond 10 kms
from the forest area, a relocation proposal
may be sent.

In the counter affidavit, it has been
stated that the GPS data was relied upon to
compute the distance between the relocated
site of the saw mill and the existing forest.
In this regard, during the course of the
submissions, a reference has been made to
the provisions contained in Section 11 of
the General Clauses Act, 1897 under which
measurement of distances for the purposes
of any Act or Regulation made after the
commencement of the said Act shall, unless
a different intention appears, be measured
in a straight line on a horizontal plane. This
principle was accepted in a judgment of a
Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High
Court in Shaik Hussain v. Divisional Forest
Officer, Proddatur2.

Though it has been urged on behalf of
the petitioner that the conclusion of the
Principal Chief Conservator of Forest to the
effect that the saw mill of the petitioner was
within a distance of 10 kms is not correct,
absolutely no material has been placed on
the record or drawn to the attention of the
Court
during
the
course
of
these
proceedings to displace the finding of fact.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has placed reliance on the
judgment delivered by the Supreme Court
in Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd. v.
Union of India3 in support of the
submission that the Supreme Court has
expected that there should be regular
updating and creation of a GIS based
decision support database.

The basic issue is that, if the petitioner
was aggrieved by the finding that the
distance of his saw mill from the reserved
forest was not beyond the distance of 10
kms, as mandated in the order of the
6 All. Smt. Jhinka Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
265
Supreme Court dated 8 May 1997, at least
some cogent material ought to have been
placed on the record which would have
warranted the Court to scrutinize the
matter. In the absence thereof, the Court
cannot proceed either on the basis of
hypothesis or surmise or come to a
conclusion that the finding of fact recorded
by the Principal Chief Conservator of
Forest was erroneous.

For these reasons, we see no reason to
entertain the writ petition. The petition is,
accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs."

17. Looking into the facts of the case as
well as the judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court as referred above and the judgment
of coordinate Bench of this Court this
Court finds that the relief so claimed by the
petitioner cannot be granted to its as
admittedly the petitioner's Saw Mill is
within 10 kms of the forest land and the
said fact has also not been disputed by the
petitioner and further the issue relating to
the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court
contained in the order dated 8.5.1997, the
amendment so made in Uttar Pradesh
Establishment and Regulation of Saw Mills
(6th Amendment) Rules, 2017 and in the
light of the fact that writ petition pertains to
the year 2011 and we are in 2022 as much
water has flown therefrom.

18. Resultantly, present petition is
dismissed. However, leaving it open to the
petitioner to approach the competent
authorities for the grant of license as per
the Uttar Pradesh Establishment and
Regulation of Saw Mills Rules 1978 as
amended from time to time and in vogue
for the grant of license of running Saw
Mills and in case the petitioner approaches
the competent authority as envisaged in the
Uttar
Pradesh
Establishment
and
Regulation of Saw Mills Rules, 1978 as
amended from time to time as in vogue
after
completing
the
formalities
so
prescribed therein this Court has no reason
to disbelieve the fact that the application so
preferred by the petitioner shall be
considered in accordance with law.

19. With the aforesaid observations,
present petition stands dismissed.
----------
(2022)06ILR A265
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ-C No. 25616 OF 2021

Smt. Jhinka Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shailendra Kumar Pandey, Sri Piyush Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Pankaj Kumar Gupta, Sri Shrawan
Kumar Tripathi

A. Constitution of India - Article 226 - UP
Revenue Code, 2006 - Sections 24(4) &
210 - Writ - Maintainability - Alternative
remedy of revision u/s 210 - Amendment
in 2019 - Where the amended provision of
S.
24(4)
provide
'the
order
of
Commissioner shall be final subject to
provision of S. 210, unamended provision
provide it without any subjection
-
Apparent conflict, how far restrict the
revisional power of Board of Revenue -
Held, mere fact that there is no further
appeal against the order passed by the
Commissioner in an appeal under subsection (4) of Section 24 would not be
held to create a bar in invocation of the