Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: NM 36-2018 in SU 850-19 1 Dt. 03.05.2025
MHCC010000632018
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 36 OF 2018
IN
S. C. SUIT NO. 850 of 2019
Hazi Nasibullah ...Plaintiff
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Defendants
Appearances :-
Ld. Advocate Akash Sing h/f. Advocate Asit Singh for Plaintiff.
Ld. Advocate Sachin Kadam for Defendants.
CORAM : Dr. S.D. Tawshikar
JUDGE, (C.R.NO.08)
Heard on : 21.04.2025
Decided on : 03.05.2025
ORAL ORDER
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
1. The plaintiff has taken out present notice of motion seeking
order of temporary injunction restraining defendants from sealing
plaintiff’s saw mill in pursuance of notice dated 14.12.2017 issued by
defendants.
2. The defendants have strongly opposed the notice of motion by
filing the reply and also challenged the very maintainability of the suit
on the ground of alternate efficacious remedy.
-- 1 of 7 --
NM 36-2018 in SU 850-19 2 Dt. 03.05.2025
3. Perused NM and reply. Heard Both sides.
4. On perusal of the plaint it can be gathered that, the plaintiff
claims to be the owner of the Maharashtra Saw Mill situated at Timber
Market, Govandi, Mumbai. The plaintiff claims that he is in the business
of saw mill since 1979. The said licence was renewed from time to time
up to the year 2000. However, thereafter, defendants have not renewed
the licence and not accepting the licence fees for the same.
5. Plaintiff further contends that the defendant had issued notice
dated 26.10.2005 to the plaintiff alleging that the plaintiff’s saw mill is
within 10 kms from the protected forest. The said notice was challenged
by the plaintiff before this Court vide Civil Suit No. 4927/2005. In the
said suit, the officer of defendant No.1 made a statement that said
notice would not be acted upon and therefore, the suit was disposed of
on 17.12.2018.
6. The plaintiff further claims that now again the plaintiff is
served with similar notice dated 14.12.2017 threatening plaintiff that
the saw mill will be sealed. Plaintiff challenges the legality of the said
notice and claims permanent permanent injunction against the
defendants.
7. Mr. Asit Singh the learned advocate for the plaintiff submits
that the plaintiff tried to pay licence fees physically as well as online.
However, the defendants’ office refused to accept the renewal fees. So
also plaintiff is unable to pay fees online as the online I.D. of plaintiff is
blocked. Therefore, plaintiff has sent a cheque of an amount of Rs.
10,000/- to the defendants towards the licence fees from the year 2000
-- 2 of 7 --
NM 36-2018 in SU 850-19 3 Dt. 03.05.2025
to 2017. Ld. Advocate submits that the plaintiffs saw mill is not within
10 km range fixed by the government. The notice dated 14.12.2017 is
unjust and illegal. He submits that the defendants’ officers have
threatened the plaintiff to stop the business of saw mill immediately.
Hence, there is apprehension to the business of plaintiff.
8.
Per contra, Mr. Kadam learned Government Pleader for
defendant Nos. 1 and 2 submits that the suit in the present form is not
maintainable. He submits that the ‘State Level Committee’ has been
already established in pursuance of Gazette/Resolution issued by
Ministry of Environment/Forest and Climate Change, on 11.11.2016. As
per the said resolution, a high power State Level Committee is
constituted. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest is the Chairperson
of the Committee and there are other six members in it. The said
committee is entrusted with the responsibility to decide about grant of
approval for setting up Wood based industrial units. The said committee
would consider grant of fresh licence as well as extension of licence
already granted for saw mill.
9. Mr. Kadam further submits that the said committee was
constituted in pursuance of the directions of Hon’ble Apex Court in case
of T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India and Ors., Writ
Petition (S) (Civil) No. 202 of 1995, dated 05-10-2015 and therefore,
an independent mechanism is formed to consider the matters relating to
Wood based industries.
10. Mr. Kadam further submits that in fact the plaintiff has
already approached the said committee and therefore, the present suit
is not maintainable. He submits that in view of the alternate efficacious
remedy made available, the suit cannot be entertained by civil court. He
-- 3 of 7 --
NM 36-2018 in SU 850-19 4 Dt. 03.05.2025
submits that this a fit case to reject the plaint under order VII Rule 11
(d) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
11. In reply, Mr. Asit Singh submits that the plaintiff is admittedly
running a business of saw mill since the year 1979. The fact of issuance
of licence and its renewal from time to time is not in dispute. The
plaintiff’s business location is not within 10 kms from the protected
forest area and therefore, the notice dated 14.12.2017 is unjust and
illegal. He submits that the plaintiff is having apprehension that due to
non renewal of licence, defendants would bow down and seal the
business of plaintiff. He shows readiness to pay licence fees as per rules.
12. On the query put by this Court, Mr. Asit Singh fairly concedes
that plaintiff has already filed application before the State Level
Committee, Nagpur in relation to renewal of licence. He submits that as
said committee has not decided his application, he has to press for
present notice of motion. He ultimately prays for protecting the plaintiff
till disposal of the application/representations filed by the plaintiff
before the State Level Committee, Nagpur.
13. From the submissions of both sides, it can be gathered that
the plaintiff is having business of saw mill at Govandi, Mumbai. The
defendants alleged that the said business location is within 10 kms of
Maharashtra Nature Park which was declared as protected forest in the
year 1991 and its status was protected forest. Therefore, the Deputy
Conservator of Forest, Thane issued intimation to the plaintiff and
similarly, situated other three saw mills to stop the business. Admittedly,
the defendants have not accepted the renewal fees from the plaintiff
since last about 25 years. In view of the notification issued by the
Government with respect to protected forest, the issue about renewal of
-- 4 of 7 --
NM 36-2018 in SU 850-19 5 Dt. 03.05.2025
licence seems to be within the jurisdiction of a respective Forest
department. Thus, in absence of renewal of licence, the plaintiff cannot
claim that he shall be permitted to carry on his business. That would be
against the settled principles of law. Therefore, I find no prima facie
case in favour of the plaintiff.
14. It further appears that the Hon’ble Apex Court vide Judgment
and order dated 05.10.2015 has ruled considered the issues relating to
wood based industries, National Parks and Wild Life Sanctuaries. The
Hon’ble Apex Court has directed for the formation of State Level
Committee for Wood based industries. The apex court has issued certain
guidelines in that regard. It further appears that in view of the said
guidelines, the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change,
Government of India vide Resolution dated 11.11.2016 has formed the
State Level Committees for all states and Union Territories, including
committee for State of Maharashtra.
15. The copy of Resolution dated 11-11-2016 is already placed on
record. Under clause (8) of the resolution, the State Level Committee is
supposed to deal with issues of grant, renewal, revocation of licence to
Wood based industries. The Wood based industries are expected to
apply for renewal of licence three months before the expiry of validity.
Such licence would be valid for five years only. The approval of State
Level Committee for the same is mandatory. The rules further prescribe
for appeal against decision of State Level Committee.
16. In view of the above, it is clear that the issue with respect to
renewal of licence for saw mills pertains to exclusive jurisdiction of
State Level Committee. Therefore, there is clear bar to entertain the
present suit. As such this Court cannot entertain the suit. Therefore, no
-- 5 of 7 --
NM 36-2018 in SU 850-19 6 Dt. 03.05.2025
reliefs can be granted to the plaintiff in the present suit.
17. It further needs to be noted that the delay in disposal of
application filed by the plaintiff before the State Level Committee
cannot be a ground to grant ad-interim relief. The plaintiff is expected
to approach proper forum, if he is having any grievance against the
inaction on the part of the State Level Committee.
18. In view of the above, I pass the following order :
ORDER
a) Notice of Motion No.36/2018 in S.C Suit No. 850/2019 is
hereby rejected and disposed of accordingly.
b) Plaint is hereby rejected as per Order VII Rule 11 (d) of Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908. Separate order to that effect is also passed
on Exhibit-1.
c) S.C Suit No. 850/2019 is disposed of. Pending applications, if any,
stands disposed of.
(Dr. S.D. Tawshikar)
Judge, City Civil Court,
Dt.: 03/05/2025. Gr. Mumbai, (C.R.08)
Dictated on : 03.05.2025
Transcribed on : 03.05.2025
Corrected on : 03.05.2025
Signed on : 03.05.2025
-- 6 of 7 --
NM 36-2018 in SU 850-19 7 Dt. 03.05.2025
“ CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
05/05/2025 3.56 p.m. Mrs. Poonam Pawar
Name of the Judge (With Court room
no.)
Dr. S.D. Tawshikar (Court Room
No.08)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
03/05/2025
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O.
on
03/05/2025
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 05/05/2025
-- 7 of 7 --