http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Suo Motu Contempt Petition 301 of 2003 Writ Petition (civil)  202 of 1995

PETITIONER: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad                              

RESPONDENT: Union of India & Ors.                                    

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/12/2003

BENCH: CJI. , Y.K. Sabharwal & Arijit Pasayat  

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

(Re : Shri Pravakar Behera, D.F.O. Puri Division, Khurda, Orissa)

IN

I.A. NOS.941 IN 754-755 WITH I.A. NO.777

Y.K. Sabharwal, J.

       By order dated 29/30th October, 2002, this Court directed closure of all  unlicensed saw mills and prohibited opening of any new saw mill without prior  permission of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC).  The proliferation of  wood based industry was one of the causes of degradation of forest.  It is evident  that the order was passed with a view to ensure protection of the forest wealth and  to enforce measures to stop illegal felling, removal and utilization of timber.  The  relevant portion of the said order reads as under : "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 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 to the grant of licence  without previous concurrence of the Central  Empowered Committee."

       In Orissa, Section 4 of Orissa Saw Mills and Saw Pits (Control), Act, 1991  prohibits establishment or operation of saw mills within reserve forest, protected  forest or any forest area or within 10 kilometers from the boundary of any forest or  forest area.  The licences of five  saw mills were cancelled by the Divisional  Forest Officer (DFO) as a licensing authority as licensees  were found to be within  a radial distances of 10 kilometers from the boundary of nearest forest.  The  following are those saw mills : 1.      Laxmi Saw Mill, Lingipur 2.      Bhawani Saw Mill, Lingipur 3.      Gopinath Timber Saw Mill, Balakati 4.      Sidheswari Saw Mills, Balakati 5.      Siula Saw Mill (Maa Tarini Timber Trades)

       The cancellation of licences by saw mills at serial Nos.4 and 5 was not  challenged.  It attained finality.  The saw mills at serials 1, 2 and 3, however, filed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

appeals against the cancellation ordered by DFO.  In appeal, the Conservator of  Forest directed the DFO to reconsider their cases.  On reconsideration, the DFO  again rejected their licences.  The saw mill at serial No.3 did not this time  challenge the decision of the DFO.  The saw mills at serial Nos.1 and 2, however,  filed appeals against the decision of the DFO, but the appeals were dismissed by  the Conservator of Forest. The respondent joined as DFO, Puri Division on 23rd December, 2002.   These licences were granted during January and February, 2003.  Despite the  aforesaid facts and the abovenoted order of this Court, all the 5 saw mills were  granted licences by the respondent-contemner.    The grant of licences in the above  manner was brought into the notice of CEC.  CEC considering the affidavit of the  Chief Secretary of the State Government, submissions of the Principal Secretary,  Forest, Government of Orissa and that of the respondent opined that the issue of  saw mill licences was in violation of the State Act above referred, the orders of the  superior officers and also in violation of the orders dated 30th October, 2002  passed by this Court.  Considering the recommendations of CEC, contained in its  report dated 18th August 2003, this Court issued suo motu notice of contempt to  the respondent \026 Pravakar Behera.   In reply to the contempt notice, the respondent has filed his affidavit.  We  have perused affidavit of the respondent dated 20th September, 2003 and have also  heard Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent.  While  tendering unconditional apology, the respondent has sought to explain that since  he joined as Divisional Forest Officer, Puri Division only on 23rd December, 2002,   he was not very much conversant with the latest developments in the management  of forest division in general and the order of this Court dated 30th October, 2002,  in particular.  He has tried to explain that when the Principal Chief Conservator of  Forest, Orissa, vide a memo dated 27th December, 2002, sent the case of Laxmi  Saw Mill, Lingipur and Bhawani Saw Mill, Lingipur to him for disposal along  with the report of the Tehsildar, he committed mistake of renewing the licence  bona fide believing that the case of renewal is not prohibited.  Under these  circumstances, he stated to have renewed the licences of these two mills on 13th  January, 2003.  Before the CEC, the respondent had stated that the order of this  Court dated 30th October, 2002 was received in his office on 16th January, 2003  whereas he had already issued licences on 13th January, 2003.  The decision in  respect of all other saw mills was taken on the same lines as that of Laxmi Saw  Mill.  It was also pleaded that he was not aware that the Conservator of Forest had  already rejected the appeals filed by saw mills otherwise he would have never  overruled the decision taken by the superiors.           The State Government, however, does not support the stand of the  respondent which is apparent from the affidavit of the Chief Secretary and the  stand of the Principal Secretary, Forest.  According to the State Government, the  saw mills were closed after cancellation of their licences.  Their appeals had been  dismissed.  Therefore, these cases could not be treated as renewal of licences and  were clearly cases of grant of fresh licences and that the Principal Chief  Conservator of Forest had merely forwarded the applications to the respondent for  decision thereof in accordance with law and that did not empower the respondent  to grant licences in violation of the order of this Court dated 30th October, 2002 in  addition to the further fact of the appeals of the saw mills having been dismissed  as above narrated.         From the aforenoted facts, it is clear that the grant of licences to saw mills  by the respondent was in clear violation of orders of this Court.  The plea that the  respondent came to know about the orders of this Court only on 16th January, 2003  and in ignorance of the said orders, the licences were granted is not tenable for  more than one reason.  Firstly, it appears that the said order was sent to the office  of the respondent on 30th December, 2002 and the licences were granted for the  first time on 13th January, 2003.  Secondly, assuming the respondent came to know  of the order on 16th January, 2003, as claimed, he took no action on his own to  recall the grant of licence.  Thirdly, he granted licences to other saw mills admitted  after 16th January, 2003 allegedly on the ground of their cases being similar to that  of Laxmi Saw Mill.  Fourthly, the licences were granted despite cancellation of  licences having already attained finality.   Apart from the above, even if we assume that the respondent did not know  about the cancellation having been upheld by his superiors, as claimed by him,  clearly it would show utter negligence of the respondent.  The fact that licences  were cancelled later on 17th May, 2003 by the respondent is not of much

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

consequence since the cancellation was a result of directions sent to him by the  Conservator of Forest on 12th May, 2003 directing cancellation of licences and on  receipt of the said directions on 16th May, the cancellation by the respondent was  ordered the next day.  It is not a case of suo motu cancellation by the respondent.

       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.