JUDGMENT
1. This appeal takes exception to the order passed by the Bombay City Civil Court dated April 3, 2001 in Notice of Motion No. 1495 of 2001. By the said Notice of Motion, appellants – saw mill owners’ moved the trial Court to grant ad-interim injunction restraining the Respondents-Defendants from interfering with their business of running saw mill or sealing the same or to withhold the transit passes. They also prayed for a direction to the Respondents to renew the licence for the running the saw mills. The trial Court by the impugned order declined to grant ad-interim relief as prayed for. This order is the subject matter of challenge in the present Appeal.
2. It is contended that the trial Court has wrongly accepted the stand taken on behalf of the Respondents that the subject saw mill is within 10 Kms radius of the forest area and covered by the circular dated February 16, 2001, which was the justification for refusing to renew the licence in favour of the appellants, which has since expired in December 2000. The Learned Counsel for the appellants contends that the basis on which the authorities have proceeded to decide the matter and have taken the view that the subject saw mill falls within the radius of 10 Kms is totally perverse. He submits that the
saw mill is situated at Byculla which is obviously at least 30 Kms away from Borivali which is Reserved Forest area. However, the Respondents have filed affidavit and countered this stand. Respondents’ affidavit clearly asserts that the subject saw mill falls within 10 Kms radius from Reserved Forest of Elephanta Caves. To overcome this stand taken on behalf of the Respondents, the Learned Counsel for the appellants contends that 10 Kms distance should be the distance by road and since there is no road between Elephanta Caves and Byculla of that distance, the restriction shall not apply. (This submission is made-as to reach Elephanta Caves from Byculla, one can travel by road only between Byculla to Gate Way of India and beyond that by sea). The Learned Counsel for the appellants has relied on a communication issued by the Deputy Secretary, Revenue and Forests Department, dated February 13, 2001 to contend that the Government has taken a policy decision that the distance of 10 Kms radius should be calculated on the basis of nearest route/road between Reserved Forest and the saw mill. The Counsel for the Respondents, however, submits that since the saw mill is admittedly within 10 Kms radius from Elephanta Caves Reserved Forest, the same cannot be allowed to operate in view of the decision of the Apex Court, in absence of permission granted by the Central Government. He further states on instructions that the communication which is relied upon by the Counsel for the appellants dated February 13, 2001, has not been given effect to and the decision referred to therein is obviously subject of the decision of the Supreme Court.
3. In this view of the matter, the only submission which requires to be examined is : whether in such an eventuality it would be appropriate to permit the appellant to approach the concerned authorities to make representation. In this context, reliance was placed on the order passed by the Nagpur Bench of our High Court, dated December 7, 2000 in Writ Petition No. 4017 of 1999. To my mind, this option is not open to the appellants for the simple reason that if the saw mill falls within the 10 Kms radius from the Reserved Forest area, the parties have no option but to close down the saw mill by virtue of the directions issued by the Supreme Court from time to time and; if at all in a given case the authorities think it appropriate to relax such a condition it could be only on obtaining prior approval of the Central Government. Be that as it may, in the decision reported in T. N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India, the Apex Court has observed as under:
“In view of the fact that the matters pending in this Court every facet of the problem throughout the country is under consideration, it is appropriate that no aspect of this matter be considered separately by any other Court in any form,”
This observation will have to be read along with the observation made by the Supreme Court in T. N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India and Ors., which reads thus :
“7. This order is to operate and to be implemented, notwithstanding any other at variance, made or which may be made by any Government or any authority. Tribunal or Court, including the High Court. The earlier orders made in these matters shall be read modified wherever necessary to this extent. This order is to continue, until further orders. This order will operate and be complied with by all concerned, notwithstanding any order at variance, made or which may be made hereafter by any authority, including the Central or any State Government or any Court (including High Court) or Tribunal.”
No other order of the Apex Court is brought to my notice which has permitted any authority or Court to consider the matter that would arise for consideration in this case.
4. Proprio vigore, it would be wholly preposterous to hold that the appellants can be permitted to make representation to the Committee or concerned authority, for even the said authority or for that matter the Government will have no jurisdiction to examine any issue that is pending consideration before the Apex Court. The fact that the subject saw mill is situated within 10 Kms distance radius from Reserved Forest, though not pliable by road as such, that matter will be examined by the Apex Court. Therefore, neither the authorities nor any Civil Court or for that this Court will have jurisdiction to entertain such a plea. In this view of the matter, it is not possible to permit the appellants to make representation to the authorities, as urged, for, that would amount to permitting the appellants to raise a plea before the authorities, which, in view of the directions issued by the Supreme Court, will have no jurisdiction to entertain. To my mind, even the maintainability of the suit before the Civil Court raising any issue which is pending before the Apex Court itself is questionable. In the circumstances, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
5. At this stage Mr. Jogalekar makes a grievance that in another proceedings taken out by the saw mill owner of a saw mill which was operating in the vicinity styled as “New Maharashtra Saw Mill” at Ghodapdeo, R Road (West), the Respondents have contended on affidavit before the City Civil Court that the same is situated within 10 Kms. distance from the Reserved/Protected Forest i.e. Sanjay Gandhi Reserved Forest, Borivali. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that obviously there must have been some error in describing the reserved forest as “Sanjay Gandhi National Park” instead of “Elephanta Caves Reserved Forest”. To my mind, the explanation offered must be genuine one. In any case, incorrect description of forest in the said case would not be of any avail to the appellants, for even that saw mill has not been allowed to operate. In this view of the matter, even this grievance is wholly misplaced and merits
no interference. However, it would be open to the authorities to take remedial steps in that case, if so advised.
Appeal is dismissed with costs.
6. Appeal dismissed.