The Orissa High Court directs that rehabilitation and licensing of saw mills under government policy cannot be denied based solely on untraceable pending offence records; the judgment affirms principles of administrative fairness and equal treatment and stands as binding authority within the state for interpreting the 2011 guidelines and relevant statutory provisions related to saw mill rehabilitation.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(C)/7754/2025 of M/S KALINGA SAW MILL, BBSR Vs STATE OF ODISHA |
| CNR | ODHC010183052025 |
| Date of Registration | 17-03-2025 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Dr. Justice Sanjeeb K Panigrahi |
| Court | Orissa High Court |
| Bench | Dr. Justice Sanjeeb K Panigrahi |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction (Orissa High Court) |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing administrative and constitutional principles regarding discretion and eligibility under statutory guidelines |
| Type of Law | Administrative, Forest/Environmental, Constitutional (Articles 14 & 19(1)(g)) |
| Questions of Law | Whether pending but untraceable offence records can be a valid ground to deny rehabilitation/licensing of saw mills under the 2011 policy and Orissa Saw Mills and Saw Pits (Control) Amendment Act, 2010? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that where an offence report is untraceable, and the applicant otherwise qualifies under the statutory guidelines and policy (seniority, absence of recorded offences, valid previous operation), administrative authorities cannot deny rehabilitation. The principle of lex non cogit ad impossibilia prevents penalising applicants for facts beyond their control. Authorities must exercise discretion fairly, reasonably, and non-arbitrarily under Article 14, and selective exclusion violates equality and legitimate expectation. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner operated a saw mill under valid license since 1991 and was in the seniority list. An offence case from 1993 was cited but untraceable despite RTI efforts. The petitioner’s representations were refused on that ground, while similarly placed mills were rehabilitated. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Odisha; all administrative authorities implementing saw mill policy in Odisha |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and tribunals considering similar questions of administrative discretion and lost records |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Authorities cannot deny rehabilitation or a fresh license solely based on an untraceable offence record if the applicant otherwise qualifies.
- Principles of lex non cogit ad impossibilia and legitimate expectation prevent punishment for circumstances outside applicants’ control.
- Past location within a prohibited forest radius does not bar relocation when policy aims to regularise through industrial estates.
- Arbitrary exclusion of similarly placed applicants violates Article 14.
- Authorities must act expeditiously, reasonably, and fairly, with time-bound communication of decisions.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court recognised the petitioner’s valid operation and inclusion in the seniority list.
- The only bar was an untraceable 1993 offence report; the court record could not be located despite RTI.
- Applying lex non cogit ad impossibilia, the court held it unfair to penalise for inability to produce a non-existent record.
- Citing Maneka Gandhi, administrative discretion must be exercised fairly; ignoring representations is arbitrary.
- The doctrine of legitimate expectation applied since the petitioner was in the eligible list with no recorded uncondoned offence.
- Relocation policy allows regularisation in industrial estates even for mills within prohibited radius.
- Similarly situated mills—including those with condoned offences—were rehabilitated; excluding the petitioner was discriminatory.
- Administrative decisions must be reasonable and non-arbitrary (S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India).
- The court directed reconsideration and a fresh decision within one month, uninfluenced by the untraceable offence record.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The saw mill is listed in the official List–I for eligible units with clean records.
- Priority for rehabilitation and relocation arises from inclusion in List–I.
- The 1993 offence report is untraceable, confirmed via RTI.
- Law should not penalise for untraceable records beyond one’s control.
- Similarly placed and some with recorded offences were rehabilitated; refusal is arbitrary and discriminatory.
- Inaction and refusal despite representations violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(g).
Respondent (State/Opposite Parties)
- The petition is not maintainable due to alleged suppression of material facts.
- An uncondoned offence report from 1993 bars eligibility under Forest Rules.
- The mill operated within a prohibited radius; licence expired in 1994 and was not renewed.
- Eligibility requires a clean record and valid license under the 2011 policy.
- Rehabilitation is discretionary and conditioned on eligibility, unmet here.
- The petitioner did not submit willingness for rehabilitation as required.
- Reliance on prior decisions upholding strict prohibition near forests.
Factual Background
The petitioner, M/s. Kalinga Saw Mill, operated in Bhubaneswar under a valid license since 1991 and was in the seniority list (List–I). An alleged 1993 offence was cited, but no court record was found despite DFO confirmation and RTI queries. The petitioner’s rehabilitation and relocation applications under the 2010 Act and 2011 guidelines went unprocessed, while similarly placed units were rehabilitated.
Statutory Analysis
- The court interpreted the Orissa Saw Mills and Saw Pits (Control) Act, 1991 as amended by Act 18 of 2010 and Notification No.13891/2011 on relocation and rehabilitation.
- Eligibility under the 2011 guidelines is based on longevity, clean compliance record, and seniority.
- Absence of a traceable offence record precludes a negative finding against the applicant.
- Policy intent to relocate mills within prohibited radius into industrial estates was affirmed.
- Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution underpinned the reasoning.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate concurring or dissenting opinion recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The court directed the administrative authority to reconsider and decide the application within one month.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The High Court reaffirmed existing constitutional and administrative law principles, providing important clarification and application of binding principles.