The Jharkhand High Court recently dismissed a Writ Petition challenging an order of revocation of the license of the Petitioner's sawmill by stating that as per the Bihar Saw Mills Act of 1990, the competent authority possesses the authority to revoke a license and seize timber in cases where the licensee cannot provide a valid explanation for unaccounted wood even if a criminal case is pending against the licensee for the illegal transportation of wood without proper documentation.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad was dealing with a Petition filed by the owner of M/s Amar Saw Mill, who encountered an incident where forest guards intercepted two trucks during an inspection and it was discovered that both trucks were carrying a quantity of wood logs that exceeded the permissible limit specified in the permits.

Consequently, both trucks were confiscated, leading to the initiation of a criminal case and a confiscation proceeding. Further, the authorized officers issued a notice to the petitioner, seeking their explanation for the potential imposition of penalties in accordance with the provisions outlined in Section 7(5)(C) of the Bihar Saw Mill (Regulation) Act of 1990 and subsequently instructed an inspection of the petitioner's mill, which was conducted in the absence of the petitioner. Based on the findings in the inspection report, the petitioner's license was revoked.

Being aggrieved with the same, the Petitioner approached the High Court. It was argued that there were two separate proceedings initiated to address the alleged wrongdoing: one involved a criminal case for penal offence, and the other aimed at confiscation. Furthermore, it was asserted that the respondent authority ordered an inspection of the petitioner's Saw Mill Store, which was conducted in the absence of the petitioner. The order, in this context, was strongly criticized as it was issued without due consideration for the fact that a criminal prosecution was already in progress at the time when the confiscating authority issued the order for confiscation.

However, on the other hand, the Respondents submitted the existence of a pending criminal prosecution has no relevance to the confiscation proceeding, as these two proceedings operate on distinct grounds and are meant to lead to separate outcomes.

Considering the submissions of both sides, the High Court stated, "On consideration of the aforesaid principle and coming back to the factual aspect of this case, is of the view that it is not the case of such nature where any error on the face of order is available based upon the discussion made hereinabove rather the order is within the four corners of the statutory provision, as per the provision of Section 7(5)(c) of the Act, 1990".

The High Court further stated that according to the Bihar Saw Mills Act of 1990, the authority is granted the jurisdiction to handle licenses. If it is determined that the licensee's actions are in violation of the license terms and conditions, then the license can be revoked. In the present case, the writ petitioner has been found to be involved in the unlawful transportation of wood logs without valid documentation or permits. It's important to note that the mere existence of a pending criminal case does not inhibit the relevant authority from exercising its power to confiscate the wood logs and cancel the license.

The Court accordingly disposed of the Petition. "Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned orders require no interference by this Court", stated the order.

Cause Title: M/s Amar Saw Mill v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. [W.P. (C) No. 205 of 2011]

Click here to read/download the Order


Justice Sujit Narayan PrasadJharkhand High CourtIndian Forest Act

Ramey Krishan Rana