LexSUSHILA SAW MILL versus STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A SUSHILA SAW MILL v. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. JULY 31, 1995 B [K. RAMASWAMY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] Orissa Saw Mills & Saw Pits (Control) Ac~ 1991 Section 4(1j-Proviso-Establishment and Operation of Saw mills- C Regulation of-Creation of Prohibition Zone-Total prohibition to cany on Saw mill business in reserved forest as well as within JO kms. from the boundaries of reserved forests-Held valid arid not violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 301. D E Constitution of India: 1950: Article 14-Class Legislation-Validity of-Statute-Object to preserve forest wealth and environment-Prohibition to cany on Saw Mill Busi- ness-Because of geographical contiguity entire area of one distlict covered by prohibition zone-Held it was a class legislation and not discriminatory. Article 19(1)(g)-Right to carry on trade and business-Restric- tion-Held it includes prohibition. With a view to regulating the establishment and operation of saw mills and saw pits and the trade of sawing so as to protect and conserve F forest and environment the State of Orissa enacted Orissa Saw Mills and Saw Pits (Control) Act, 1991. Section 4 of the Act enjoined that on and after the appointed day no person· should 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. Further under proviso to G Section 4(1) a total embargo was placed on the right to carry on trade and business in saw milling operations or sawing operation within the prohibited area i.e. within a reserved forest, protected forest or any forest area or within 10 k.m. from the boundary of such forest or forest area. The petitioner, which established a saw mill within the prohibited area and was issued a notice to close down its operation with immediate effect, chal- H lenged the validity of S.4(1) and the notice issued to it before the High 426 SUSHILA SAW MILL v. ST ATE 427 court contending that (i) its right to carry on trade and business was A violated; (ii) the Act does not contemplate a total ban on the right to carry on the saw mill business; (iii) mills situated within the district covered by the prohibited zone have been discriminated vis-a-vis other districts be- cause geographical contiguity of the district was such that no saw mill could be established within 10 kms. of the forest as envisaged under proviso to Section 4(1) of the Act. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the validity of the impugned provision. The appellant preferred a special leave petition before this Court. Dismissing this petition, this Court HELD : 1. The right to carry on trade or business envisaged under B c Art. 19(1) (g) and Art. 301 is subject to the statutory regulation. In the public interest restriction under Article 19(1) (g) may in certain rare cases include total prohibition. It is seen that the reserved forest is being D denuded or depleted by illicit felling. Thereby denudation of the reserved forest was noticed by the legislature . 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 legislature. The Act came to be enacted to impose a total ban in prohibited area for the period during which the ban is in E 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 nor unreasonable. (431-D; G-H; 432-A-B] Narendra Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., AIR (1960) SC 430, relied on. Lakshmi Narayan Saw Mills & Ors. v. State of Orissa & Ors., (1995) 1 OLR 1 FB, approved. F G M/s. Saraswati Saw Mills Etc. Etc. v. State of Orissa and Ors., (1995) 79 C.R. T. P.61, cited. 2. It is true that by geographical contiguity, Keonjhar District ap- pears to have been situated within the prohibited area but that is the legislative mandate t~at the entire area covered within the prohibited zone H 428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A 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 effec
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.