LexSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS versus GANESH WOOD PRODUCTS AND ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
..
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS
v.
GANESH WOOD PRODUCTS AND ORS. ETC.
SEPTEMBER 11, 1995
[B.P. JEEV AN REDDY AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.)
Constitution of India-Seventh Schedule-Entry 24 of List //-In-
dustries-Katha /ndust1y-No enactment made by State of Himachal Pradesh
goveming establishment of industfies-Executive power of State extends to that
subject matter.
A
B
c
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986-Forest based industries-Estab-
lishment of-Legal enactments govemin~Significance of forest wealth-Im-
pact on environment and ecology-No absolute or unrestricted right to
establish industries-Policy of liberalisation to be understood in the light of
National Forest Polig,-No distinction between govemment forests and D
p1ivate forests.
Administrative Law : Promiss01y Estoppel-{)octline of-Words the
promisee ...... alters his position, in the statement of doctrine-Meanin~an
doctrine be put on higher pedestal than written contract between parties.
E
For encouraging the industrialisation of the State of Himachal
Pradesh by a notification dated May 13, 1974, the Governor of Himachal
Pradesh established the Industrial Projects Approval and Review
Authority (IPARA). The terms of reference and the activities to be under-
taken by the Authority were specified which were mainly to process the F
applications for establishment of new industries and select projects for
government approval. On November 29, 1990 IPARA was abolished by the
Government. Subsequently it was reconstituted by a Notification dated
September 3, 1993. During the period IPARA was not in existence, the
Director of Industries, Himachal Pradesh was looking after that work.
G
Several units applied to !PARA/Director of Industries during the
years 1992 and 1993 proposing to establish mechanised units for manufac-
turing katha. The applications made by 8 units were considered by the
sub-committee of IPARA, which granted approval' to all the applicants.
All the proposals were put up for, further consideration before the full H
477
478
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A
committee of IPARA. The full committee decided to recommend six units
for government's approval. It rejected the proposal of two units on the
ground that they failed to take any step to set up the factories pursuant
to sub-committee's approval. Out of the six units recommended, only three
units had been approved by the Governor. Just about the time the governor
B
c
was taking his decision, one MLA filed a Writ Petition for restraining the
government from permitting the establishment of katha units in the State
on the ground that such establishment would lead to indiscriminate felling
of khair trees which. would have a deep and adverse effect upon the
environment and ecology of the State. Soon afterwards, one existing
mechanised unit filed writ petition for restraining the government from
granting permission for establishment of any new unit on the ground that
the raw material available in the State was not adequate to sustain any
new units since the entire raw material available was hardly sufficient to
meet its own requirement and the requirement of existing bhattiwalas.
D
Three Writ Petitions came to be filed by the units, which were refused
approval by the Governor.
The High Court dismissed the Writ Petitions filed by the MLA and
the existing unit respectively. It allowed other two Writ Petitions and
quashed the orders of the Government refusing permission to these three
E
persons to establish their units. Two writ petitions filed by two other units
were allowed with a direction to the authorities of the state to reconsider
their case. These SLPs were filed against the judgment of the High Court.
The appellant submitted that the provisional registration or 'approval' by
IP ARA Cl.id not confer any right upon any of the units inasmuch as the said
F
'approval' was subject to final approval by the government; that the
Governor had taken into consideration the availability of raw material in
the State and arrived at the conclusion that it could sustain only three
units and therefore, no valid objection could be taken to the orders of the
government since they were conceived in public interest keeping in view the
availability of the raw material and that the High Court exceeded the
G constraints of writ jurisdiction in taking upon itself the determination of
the availability of the raw material and on that basis quaExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.