http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: SUSHILA SAW MILL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OPF ORISSA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT31/07/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J)

CITATION:  1995 AIR 2484            1995 SCC  (5) 615  1995 SCALE  (4)776

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This specila leave petition arise from the order of the Division Bench  of Orissa High Court dated march 16, 1995 in civil Writ  Petition No.  1545 of  1995. The  petitioner has established a Saw Mill in the year 1980 in Keonjhas District of Orissa State. The notice under s.4(1) of Orissa Saw Mills & Saw  Pits (Control)  Act 1991  (for short  ‘the Act’)  was issued to  the petitioner  to close down its operations with immediate effect.  Challenging the validity of s.4(1) of the Act and  the notice,  he filed  the writ petition contending that it  violates hbis  fundamental right  to carry on trade and business  and also  created invidious  discrimination to the Saw  Mills/Saw Pits  situated in that district vis-a-vis other districts.  It was also contended that the Act did not create any  total ban  but gave  discretion to the licensing authority to grant or refuse the renewal of licence. Without considering their  application  for  renewal,  direction  to close  down  the  mill  is  arbitrary.  the  Division  Bench negatived both  the copntentions relying upon its Full Bench judgment in  Lakshmi Narayan  Saew Mills  & Ors. v. State of Orissa and  Ors. (1995(1)  OLR 1  FB). The petitioner placed reliance on  a Division  bench judgment  of that Court in in M/s. Saraswati  Saw Mills  etc. etc.  v. State of Orissa and Ors (1995  (79)  C.R.T.  p.61).  It  is  contended  for  the petitioner that the views of the full Bench and the Division bench judgment in question are not correct. A reading of the ACt  does  not  indicate  that  the  statute  imposed  total prohibition on  the right to carry on the Saw Mill business. Even optherwise,  mills situated  within the  district  have been  discriminated   as  its   geographical  contiguity  of District is  such that  no Saw  Mill can  be established  or exist within 10 k.m. as envisaged under proviso to s.4(1) of the Act.  Therefore, it  violates their  fundamental  rights under Arts. 14, 19(1)(g) and 301 of the Constitution.      The Act came into force on november 20, 1991. The Rules

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

made in  exercise of  the power  under s.213  have come into force on novemnber 18, 1993. The Act was enacted to regulate establishment and  operation ofd  Saw Mills and Saw Pits and trade  of   sawing  to  protect  and  conserve  foprest  and environment and  for matters incidental thereto of connected therewith.  The   "forest  area"  is  defined  to  mean  all noptified lands  as forest under any law and administered as forest whether State-owned oir private and whether wooded or maintained as  a potential  forest land.  Section 5 empowers the Government  to declare  for a  specified period reserved forest etc.  Section 4 of the Act provides establishment and operation of  Saw Mills  and  Saw  Pits.  The  said  section provides as under:      "4. Establishment  and operation  of Saw      mill and Saw Pit.      1) On  and after  the appointed  day, no      person shall  establish or operate a saw      mill  or   saw  pit   except  under  the      authority and  subject to the conditions      of a licence granted under this Act:      Provided that  no person shall establish      or operate  any  saw  mill  or  saw  pit      within  a   reserved  forest,  protected      forest or   any  forest area  within ten      kilometers from the boundary of any such      forest or forest area.      2) Notwithstanding anything contained in      sub-s.(10      (i) a  saw mill  or saw Pit, established      by   the   Orissa   Forest   DEvelopment      Corporation  Limited  or  by  any  other      agency of  the Government  prior to  the      appointed  day,   may  continue   to  be      operated by  such Corporation or agency,      as the  case may be, and in such a case,      the Corporation  or agency,  as the case      may be,  shall be  deemed to be licensee      for the purposes of the Act;]      (ii) a  Saw mill  or saw  pit other than      one  referred   to  in  clause  (i)  and      establishment prior to the appointed day      may continue to be operated and shall be      deemed to  be a  saw mill or saw pit, as      the case  may be,  licensed  under  this      Act:-      a) for a period of three months from the      appointed day; or      b) if an application made in accordaqnce      with section  6 for a licence is pending      on the expiry of the period specified in      clause (a0,  till the  disposal of  such      application under sub-s.(2) of s.7"      The petitioner-saw  Mill is  admittedly situated within the reserved  forest or  protected  forest  or  forest  area within 10  K.m. from the boundary of such forest area. thus, the petitioner’s  Saw Mill is situated within the prohibited area. The  question, therefore,  is whether  the prohibition contained in  statute is  valid in  law? Section 4 regulates establishm,ent and operation of Saw Mills and Saw Pits under the Act  enjoining that  on and  after the  appointed day no person shall  establish or  operate a Saw Mill or Saw Pit or sawing operations  except under the authority and subject to the conditions  of  licences  granted  under  the  Act.  The proviso which  was assailed  in this  petition puts  further embargo that  no person  shall establish  or operate any SAw

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

Mill or  Saw Pit  which is  situated in  a reserved  forest, protected forest  or any foprest area or within 10 k.m. from the boundary of such forest or forest area. by applying non- obstante  clause,   sub-s.(2)  of   s.4  relieves  from  the operation of proviso to sub-s.(1) of s.4, only a Saw Mill or a  Saw   Pit  established   by  Orissa   Forest  DEvelopment Corporation Ltd. or any other agency of the Government prior to the  appointed day.  Their continuance and operationm are only saved  and they  are deemed  to be the licensee for the purpose of  regulation  of  the  Act.  Clause  (ii)  thereof madates that  the Saw  mill or Saw Pit other then covered by Clause (i)  of S.4(2) established prior to the appointed day may continue  to be  operated and  shall be deemed to be sae mill or  Saw Pit  and deemed to have been licensed under the Act but  it is  only a  transitory provision as indicated in sub-clauses (a)  & (b) thereof. In other words, the Saw Mill established prior  to the  Act coming  into force, i.e., the appointed day  and continuing  to operate  after the Act has came  into   force,  shall  be  entitled  to  carry  on  its operations for  a period  of three months from the appointed day or  till the  application for  licence or  renewal  made under s.6  is pending consideration adn is disposed of under sub-s.(2) of  s.7. Section  5 gives,  power to  the State to declare prohibited  area and  ss. [2]  envisages that during the  substisting   period  of   the  prohibited   area   the consequences have been enumerated under sub-s.(2) of s.4 and proviso to  s.4[1], namely,  prohibition to  grant a licence for establishment  of a Saw Mill or a Saw Pit, or operatuion of the  existing saw  mill or  saw pit was restricted to the period specificied  in clauses[a]  and [b]  of s.4 [2] (ii); and prohibition  to  mrenew  the  licences  to  a  Saw  Mill situated within  or a  Saw pit  "shall cease  to operate and keep oits  saw operation  closed". The  only enablisng power given to  the licensing  authority was  to see that existing stock may  be disposed  of any  no  claim  for  damages  was permitted. For  their  contravention  s.13  gives  power  to confiscate the  property. Sections 6 and 7 operates to grant licences in  areas other than the prohibited area. Rule 3 of the rules  gives effect to th3e provision of the Act and the grant of  the licence  will be  subject  to  the  conditions enumerated in  clauses (i)  to (v)  of  Rule  6.  Section  7 enjoins the  licensing Officer  to grant  of refuse to grant licence in  accordance with the provision of the ACt and the Rules and for the reasons enumerated thereunder.      It would thus be seen that the Act intended to regulate the operatiuons  of the  Saw Mill and saw pit or sawing. The right to  carry on  trade of  business envisaged  under Art. 19(1)  (g)   and  Art.  301  is  subject  to  the  statutory regulation. When  the stature prescribs total prohibition to continue to  operate even  tye existing  Saw Mills  situated within the  prohibited area,  the right to carry on trade or business is subject to the provisions of the ACt. proviso to Section 4(1)  puts a  total embargo on the right to carry on trade  or  business  in  Saw  Milling  operation  or  Sawing operation within the prohibited area. It is settled law that in the public interest restriction under Art. 19 [1] (g) may in certain  rare cases include total prohibition. This Court in Narendra  kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & ors. (AIR 1960 SC 430)  held the  it is  reasonable to think that makers of the constitution  considered  the  word‘restriction’  to  be sufficiently wide to save laws inconsistent with Art.19 (1). or taking  away  the  rights    conferred  by  the  Article, provided this inconsistency or taking away was reasonable in the interest  of the  differenmt matters  mentioned  in  the clause. There can be no doubt, therefore, that they intended

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

the word  ‘restriction’ to include cases of prohibition also in certain rare cases. The contention that a law prohibiting the exercise  of a  fundamental right  is in  no case  saved cannot, therefore, be accepted. It is seen that the reserved forest is  being denuded  or depleted  by  illicit  felling. Thereby denudation of the reserved forest was noticed by the legislture. The  preservation of  the forest  is a matter of great public  interest  and  one  of  the  rare  cases  that demanded the  total ban  by the leguslature. the Act came to be enacted  to impose a total ban in prohibited area for the period during which the ban is in operation, to carry on Saw mills business  or Sawing  operation within  the  prohibited area. It  is, therefore,  clear that  the statute intends to impose  a  total  ban  which  is  found  to  be  in  "public interest". The  individual interest,  therefore, must  yield place to  the public  interest. Accordingly,  it is  neither arbitrary not unreasonable. The Full Bench of the High Court upheld the  provision as  valid and  in  this  case  it  has rightly declared  the law.  It is  true that by geographical contiguity, Keonjhar  District appears to have been situated within the  prohibited area  but  that  is  the  legislative mandate that  the entire  area covered within the prohibited zone is  treated as  a class  as  against  the  other  area. Therefore, when  the limits  of  that  district  are  within prohibited zone  of the reserved or protected or forest area etc. or  within 10  k.m., it is a legislative scheme to give effect to  the legislative  object in the public interest to preserve forest  wealth and  environment and  to put  end to illicit felling  of forest  growth. Therefore, it is a class legislation; it  is not  discriminatory and  does not offend Art. 14  or Article  301 of  the Constitution. it is a valid law. The Special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.