Nagpur: The state-level committee (SLC) seems to be non-committal on revoking around 200 sawmill licences issued during the last five years and taking action against respective officials who issued these against the Supreme Court directives. The SLC is also silent on state government orders on filing a contempt case against ex-PCCF (HoFF) UK Agrawal for granting 50 additional bands saw licences (ABHS).
The lax approach of the SLC reflects in the minutes of the 18th SLC meeting held on December 21 in which two members voiced their dissent for inaction. The SLC is silent on several issues including direction from the state on December 8 to send a draft of a contempt petition against Agrawal in 15 days for granting licences to 50 sawmills as chairman of SLC.
The SLC members were not unanimous on several issues and representative of MoEFCC CB Tashildar and APCCF (protection) Sanjeev Gaur expressed their dissent on SLC not taking a decision on revocation of licences granted in the past as well as pending applications for AHBS.
The SLC seems to delay action against Agrawal by initiating departmental inquiry as well as contempt proceedings in the Supreme Court even after the lapse of almost 60 days. Last time when TOI had asked SLC chairman N Rambabu, he said, “The decision of contempt proceedings will be taken in the SLC meeting. However, there is no mention of it in the minutes.”
It is not only Agrawal responsible for the violations since 2016, at least 200 such sawmill licences have been issued by the SLC by then officials which the state wants to be revoked and action be taken against all such officials.
On October 30, ordering to cancel 50 sawmills licences issued by Agrawal, the MoEFCC said, “When discretionary power is conferred on administrative authority, it is required to be exercised according to law, which has been abused by Agrawal by exceeding his jurisdiction.” The order also criticized the state for simply giving directions without initiating any action.
The SLC doesn’t seem to be serious in implementing the MoEFCC order. Tashildar and Gaur wanted all AHBS noticed to be in violation of the apex court order of March 4, 1997, should be revoked.
Gaur in his dissent note said not revoking such invalid permissions would not only amount to deliberately disobeying the order of the state government but also tantamount to wilful disobedience of the Supreme Court orders. “All such permissions, which are not in conformity with the rules, must be revoked forthwith,” he said.
On the issue of taking a decision on pending 500 applications for sawmill licences with SLC, members were not unanimous and both, Tashildar and Gaur expressed their dissent and demanded to dispose all pending applications with direction to the applicants to come afresh as and when the competent authority takes a final decision on timber availability report. However, the SLC did not dispose of these applications and decided to keep such applications in abeyance.
The forest department is also yet to file a reply on the writ petition filed in the high court by 24 sawmill owners challenging the MoEFCC decision to cancel licences to 50 sawmills. The only grievance of the petitioners is that the environment ministry did not hear them before issuing an order to cancel 50 ABHS. The court has granted the last chance to file the reply.