ASHOK KUMAR vs THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREST-CUM-APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND OTHERS
- Court
- High Court of Himachal Pradesh
2026:HHC:19496
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
High Court of H.P.
CWP No.10525 of 2025
a/w CWP No.14736 of 2025
Reserved on: 10.03.2026
Date of decision: 25.05.2026
1. CWP No.10525 of 2025
Ashok Kumar. ...Petitioner.
Versus
Deputy Director General of
Forest-cum-Appellate Authority & Ors. …Respondents.
2. CWP No.14736 of 2025
Ashok Kumar Puri. ...Petitioner.
Versus
Deputy Director General of
Forest-cum-Appellate Authority & Ors. …Respondents.
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
CWP No.10525 of 2025
For the petitioner : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Sunny Modgil (through VC), Mr.
Manik Sethi, Ms. Shabnam and Ms.
Annanya Verma, Advocates.
For the respondents : Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Senior Panel
Counsel, for respondents No.1, 3 and 4.
: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with
Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Additional
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?
Yes
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-2- 2026:HHC:19496
Advocate General, for respondents No.2,
5 and 6.
: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate, for
respondents No.7 to 33.
CWP No.14736 of 2025
High Court of H.P.
For the petitioner : Mr. R.L. Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Yudhbir Singh Thakur and Mr. Ayush
Chauhan, Advocates.
For the respondents : Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Senior Panel
Counsel, for respondents No.1, 3 and 4.
: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with
Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Additional
Advocate General, for respondents No.2,
5 and 6.
: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate, for
respondent No.7.
Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge
These petitions, involving identical questions of fact and
law for adjudication and seeking almost identical reliefs in both
petitions, are being decided by this common judgment.
2. In CWP No.10525 of 2025 , initially prayers ‘A’ and ‘B’
were made. However, during the pendency of the petition, vide order
dated 17.09.2025 passed in CMP No.14900 of 2025, amendment
was allowed and prayer ‘B.1’ was also added. Accordingly, the
substantive reliefs prayed for in this petition are as under:–
“A. Issue an appropriate writ to quash and set-aside the
notification dated 29.04.2008 (Annexure P-2) as being bad in
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-3- 2026:HHC:19496
the eyes of law to the extent it put restrictions on Katha Bhatti
using IBR Boiler for the reason that the same is discriminatory
and against Article 14 & 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
High Court of H.P.
B. Issue an appropriate writ to set-aside the decision of the 15th
meeting of the SLC dated 04.07.2024 related to Agenda No.3
(Annexure P-9), and also the appeal order dated 30.04.2025
(Annexure P-11) taken by the Appellate Authority
(Respondent No. 1), as being arbitrary and without
jurisdiction.
B.1. Issue an appropriate writ or direction to quash and set-aside
all the subsequent and consequential action of the
Respondent State, as a consequence of the decision of the
SLC dated 04.07.2024 related to Agenda 3 (Annexure P-9) &
Appeal Order dated 30.04.2025 (Annexure P-11) including
the consequential conversion order by the Respondent No. 6
(Annexed as Annexure R-6/16) and also the notification dated
15.03.2025 issued by the Respondent State (Annexed as
Annexure R-6/17).”
3. In CWP No.14736 of 2025 , the substantive relief prayed
for in the petition is as under:-
“A. Issue an appropriate writ or direction to quash and set-aside
the decision of the SLC dated 04.07.2024 related to Agenda
3 (Annexure P-9) & Appeal Order dated 30.04.2025
(Annexure P-15) and all the subsequent and consequential
action of the Respondent State, as a consequence of the said
decision including the consequential conversion order by the
Respondent No. 6 and also the notification dated 15.03.2025
issued by the Respondent State (Annexed as Annexure P-
14).”
4. Replies on behalf of respondent-State, i.e. respondents
No.2, 5 and 6, as well as respondent No.7, have been filed.
Respondents No.8 to 33 in CWP No.10525 of 2025 have adopted
the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.7. No reply has been filed
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-4- 2026:HHC:19496
on behalf of respondents No.1, 3 and 4, keeping in view the nature
High Court of H.P.
of the petitions and the reliefs prayed for therein.
A. FACTS OF THE CASE
5. Certain undisputed facts, emerging from the pleadings
of the parties, are being enumerated hereinafter.
6. The Legislative Assembly of the State of Himachal
Pradesh enacted the Himachal Pradesh (Sale of Timber) Act, 1968
(Act No.18 of 1968) (hereinafter referred to as the “ Timber Act,
1968 ”), which received the assent of the President of India on
12.11.1968 and was published in the Rajpatra Himachal Pradesh
(Extraordinary) dated 17.02.1968. The relevant provisions thereof,
referred to by the parties, are reproduced as under:–
“ 3. Power to make rules, regulating sale of timber and the
establishment of sale depots.-
(1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official
Gazette, make rules to regulate the sale of timber and the
establishment of sale depots for such timber.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the
foregoing powers, such rules may,-
(a) prescribe the classes of timber to which the rules shall
apply;
(b) define what shall be deemed to be a sale depot;
(c) provide for the establishment, registration, regulation
and inspection of the depots, and the levy of fees for
registration; prescribe the period for which registration
shall hold good and the conditions under which timber
may be brought to, stored at, and removed from, sale
depots; and prohibit the sale of timber at or the
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-5- 2026:HHC:19496
establishment or maintenance of unregistered sale
depots;
High Court of H.P.
(d) .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. ..
(3) All rules made under this section shall be so made after
previous publication in the Official Gazette.
(4) All rules made under this Act shall be laid before the
Legislative Assembly as soon as may be after they are made.”
7. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of
the Timber Act, 1968, the Himachal Pradesh Forest (Sale of Timber)
Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the “ Timber Rules, 1969 ”)
were framed. The relevant Rules thereof, referred to by the parties,
read as under:–
“ 2. Definition : - In these rules unless there is anything repugnant
in the subject or context,-
(i) "timber" includes trees when they have fallen or have
been felled and all wood whether cut-up or fashioned
or hallowed out for any purpose or not;
(ii) "Depot" means any building or place where timber is
brought or stored for sale, as it is or processed through
sawing or any other method/process.
[Explanation- Saw mills which process timber through sawing for
whatever purpose shall be deemed to be depot.]
3. No person shall establish or maintain a depot unless it is
registered in accordance with these rules.
4. Any person wishing to establish or maintain a depot shall
register the same in the office of the Forest Division in which the
depot is situated, and shall give in respect of such depot such details
in regard to origin of timber as may be required by the Divisional
Forest officer. Every person registering a depot shall be and remain
responsible for the observance of all rules which may from time to
time be notified by the Himachal Pradesh Government under section
3 of the Himachal Pradesh Forest (Sale of Timber) Act, 1968,
provided that the Divisional Forest Officer, with the approval of the
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-6- 2026:HHC:19496
Conservator, may exempt by order in writing any timber dealer from
the operation of such rules as he may consider necessary. Each
depot registered under this rule shall be assigned a number by the
registering officer. In the case of persons having depots at the late of
the publication of these rules a period of six months from such will be
allowed within which the deposit existing shall be registered.”
High Court of H.P.
8. In the year 2008, draft amendment Rules titled the
Himachal Pradesh Forest (Sale of Timber) Rules, 2008, were
published in the Rajpatra Himachal Pradesh (Extraordinary) on
04.01.2008 vide Notification No. FFE-B-F(7)-1/2000 dated
31.12.2007, in pursuance of Section 3 of the Timber Act, 1968,
inviting objections and suggestions from persons likely to be affected
thereby, as required under Section 3(3) of the Timber Act, 1968,
within a period of thirty days from the date of publication.
9. For receiving no objection or suggestion, in the specified
period, the Himachal Pradesh Forest (Sale of Timber) Rules, 2008
(hereinafter referred to as ‘ Timber Rules, 2008 ’), were notified.
Amongst amendment of other Rules, amendment of Rules 2 and 4,
as referred to by the parties, read as under:-
Amendment of rule 2 2 In rule 2 of the Himachal Pradesh
Forest (Sale of Timber) Rules,1969
(hereinafter referred to as the said
rules) after clause (ii), the following
shall be added, namely:-
"Explanation: Katha Bhatti and Katha
Bhatti using IBR boiler which process
khairwood for the manufacture of katha
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-7- 2026:HHC:19496
and allied products shall be deemed to
be a depot."
High Court of H.P.
Amendment of rule 4 3 After rule 4 of the 'said rules' the
following shall be added, namely:-
The Operation of the Katha Bhatties
and Katha Bhatties using IBR boilers
shall be regulated as per conditions
enumerated in Annexure-A appended
to these rules.
10. As a result of aforesaid amendment, the amended Rules
2 and 4 of the Timber Rules, 1969, as amended by the Timber Rules,
2008, read as under:-
“ 2. Definition : - In these rules unless there is anything repugnant
in the subject or context,-
(i) "timber" includes trees when they have fallen or have
been felled and all wood whether cut-up or fashioned
or hallowed out for any purpose or not;
(ii) "Depot" means any building or place where timber is
brought or stored for sale, as it is or processed through
sawing or any other method/process.
Explanation- Saw mills which process timber through sawing for
whatever purpose shall be deemed to be depot.
Explanation: Katha Bhatti and Katha Bhatti using IBR boiler which
process khairwood for the manufacture of katha and allied products
shall be deemed to be a depot.
.. .. .. ..
4 . Any person wishing to establish or maintain a depot shall
register the same in the office of the Forest Division in which the
depot is situated, and shall give in respect of such depot such details
in regard to origin of timber as may be required by the Divisional
Forest officer. Every person registering a depot shall be and remain
responsible for the observance of all rules which may from time to
time be notified by the Himachal Pradesh Government under section
3 of the Himachal Pradesh Forest (Sale of Timber) Act, 1968,
provided that the Divisional Forest Officer, with the approval of the
Conservator, may exempt by order in writing any timber dealer from
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-8- 2026:HHC:19496
the operation of such rules as he may consider necessary. Each
depot registered under this rule shall be assigned a number by the
registering officer. In the case of persons having depots at the late of
the publication of these rules a period of six months from such will be
allowed within which the deposit existing shall be registered.
High Court of H.P.
The Operation of the Katha Bhatties and Katha Bhatties using IBR
boilers shall be regulated as per conditions enumerated in Annexure-
A appended to these rules.”
11. Relevant clauses of Annexure-A, appended to the
Timber Rules, 2008 in terms of Rule 4 thereof, read as under:-
1 The number of traditional katha bhatties allowed to operate in
H.P. shall be 40 as were operating during 2006-07.
2 The number of katha units using boilers will be restricted to
39, which was the number of units allowed to install baby
boilers upto 31.3.2007.
3 The traditional katha bhatties will be allowed to operate at
their current level of consumption of khairwood.
4 .. .. .. ..
5 .. .. .. ..
6 .. .. .. ..
7 The modified system of katha extraction through IBR Boilers
will continue to remain seasonal. Katha will be extracted
st st
during the winter months traditional from 1 November to 31
March only, as is being done through the traditional Bhatti
system.
8 On the basis of the production of Khairwood in the State,
maximum quantity of khair heartwood allowed to be used by
boiler units will be 3750 qtls = 5435 qtls khairwood with bark
(2534 M.G or say 2500 MG) of khair in the season. If at any
time the quantity of khair heartwood or equivalent khair wood
with bark is found to be more than the permissible limit
applicable at the time of inspection, its registration will be
cancelled.
.. .. .. ..”
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-9- 2026:HHC:19496
12. Till the year 1975, Katha in the State of Himachal
High Court of H.P.
Pradesh was being manufactured only through traditional Katha
Bhatties. In the year 1975, a mechanized unit, namely Shanker
Trading Company, was established in the State of Himachal
Pradesh. Thereafter, in the year 1992–93, certain units applied
before the Industrial Purchase Approval and Review Authority
(‘ IPARA ’)/Director of Industries for permission to establish
mechanized units for manufacturing Katha. Out of fifteen applicant
units, some were recommended for grant of approval, whereas
proposals of others were rejected.
13. In sequel to the aforesaid approval and rejections,
certain writ petitions were preferred in this High Court, both against
granting permission as well as denial of permission to establish
mechanized Katha units, including CWP Nos. 1445 of 1993, 1475 of
1993, 1489 of 1993, 1576 of 1993, 1590 of 1993, 1679 of 1993, 145
of 1994 and 611 of 1994. These writ petitions were decided by a
Division Bench by a common judgment dated 30.12.1994, whereby
petitions challenging grant of permissions were dismissed, whereas
the orders denying permission were set aside.
14. The aforesaid judgment dated 30.12.1994 was assailed
before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.8184-93 of 1995. The Apex
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-10- 2026:HHC:19496
Court, vide judgment dated 08.05.1995 in State of H.P. and others
High Court of H.P.
vs. Ganesh Wood Products and others , reported in (1995) 6 SCC
363 , set aside the judgment of the High Court and remitted the
matters to the High Court for fresh disposal of the writ petitions in
light of judgment rendered by the Apex Court and the law applicable
thereto.
15. In the aforesaid judgment, following directions were also
passed by the Apex Court:-
“63. The Government of Himachal Pradesh shall make a survey
and assess the approximate availability of khair wood in the year
1996 and the ensuing years. This shall be done through an expert
body to be appointed by the government. The government shall be
entitled to rely upon the expert committee's report and its own
assessment arrived on the basis of such report before the High Court
for its consideration as provided in this judgment.
64. No new industry/unit for manufacture of katha shall be
approved by the government pending a final decision by the
government on the question of availability of raw material in the years
to come.”
16. Out of the aforesaid petitions, CWP No.1445 of 1993
was re-registered as CWP No.1301 of 2006 , titled Yogendra
Chandra vs. State of H.P. & others . Yogendra Chandra, who was
the petitioner in the earlier CWP No.1445 of 1993, filed CWP
No.1301 of 2006 espousing the cause of environmental degradation
in the State of Himachal Pradesh on account of manufacture of
Katha, alleging that, after passing of the judgment dated 08.05.1995
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-11- 2026:HHC:19496
in the remanded matters, the State Government had acted in
High Court of H.P.
defiance of the mandate of the Apex Court by granting permission to
certain units for manufacturing Katha. The said writ petition was
decided vide judgment dated 07.04.2011.
17. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed with
observation that question of grant of permission of use of boilers in
place of traditional Bhatties was never an issue before the Apex
Court and traditional Bhatties were already functioning, and
therefore, there had been no technical change in manufacturing
process from traditional Handies to Boilers. However, in public
interest, certain directions were issued, relevant whereof are as
under:–
“52. We are of the view that in public interest, certain directions
are also required to be issued. Though the Committee has proposed
several conditions, it is not clear from any affidavit as to whether any
Committee has gone into the impact of Khair tree plantation and
availability of Khair wood after the functioning of the units for the last
around four years. It is also not clear from the affidavits as to whether
there have been periodic inspections in the units and as to whether
they stick to the permit conditions as required by the technical order
and other guidelines. Still further, as is clear from the report of the
Committee itself, no scientific survey has been conducted as to the
availability of Khair wood on the basis of the Khair tree plantation.
The assessment, as above, has not been made only on the basis of
felling. That is and that cannot be a scientific basis. Therefore, there
will be a direction to the Committee constituted by the State as per
the notification dated 15.2.2007 for the preparation of draft guidelines
for regulating the working of Katha Bhatties in the State of H.P., to
conduct scientific survey as to the availability of Khair wood in the
State. This survey shall be completed within a period of six months.
On the basis of the survey, if required, there shall be review of the
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-12- 2026:HHC:19496
licences already granted. Needless to say, in such an event, the
affected parties shall be issued notice. There will also be a direction
to the Committee to take steps to inspect all the licenced units and
see whether they are functioning within the permitted conditions and
if not, stringent action shall be taken in the cases of such units which
have violated the conditions, be it even the cancellation of licences.
Till the scientific survey, as above, is conducted, no new licence shall
be granted to any Katha manufacturing unit either for starting afresh
or for conversion of Handies to boiler system.”
High Court of H.P.
18. In view of the aforesaid restraint order, no new licence
was granted to any Katha manufacturing unit either for establishment
afresh or for conversion of units to IBR boiler system. However, as
no scientific survey was conducted within the period of six months
granted by the Court, the existing position continued, whereby 40
traditional Bhatties, 39 semi-mechanized units and 3 fully
mechanized units remained operational for manufacture of Katha in
the State of Himachal Pradesh.
19. On 05.10.2015, the Apex Court in T.N. Godavarman
Thirumulpad vs. Union of India , reported in (2016) 13 SCC 612
(2) , in matters relating to wood-based industries (‘ WBIs’ ), passed the
following order:-
“127. On our request, Shri Harish Salve, the learned Amicus Curiae
has given us a brief note on the matters pending before the Green
Bench in different categories. He has also made certain suggestions
for early disposal of those matters. He has exchanged the aforesaid
note with Shri Ranjit Kumar, the learned Solicitor General of India,
who represents the Union of India, Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned
Senior Counsel, who appears for some of the parties.
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-13- 2026:HHC:19496
128. The learned Amicus Curiae has classified the matters pending
before the Green Bench under different heads such as: (i) matters
relating to wood-based industries, (/i) matters relating to national
parks/wildlife sanctuaries, (iii) matters relating to exemptions from the
payment of the NPV, etc. etc.
High Court of H.P.
129. We intend to take up the first category viz. matters relating to
wood-based industries.
Category I: Matters relating to wood-based industries
130. We have heard Shri Harish Salve, learned Amicus Curiae,
Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General of India, Shri K.K.
Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel and other learned Senior
Counsel/counsel. Accordingly, we pass the following orders:
130.1. The State Level Committees for Wood-based Industries
("SLCs") are, subject to the compliance with the prescribed
guidelines and procedure, authorised to take decisions regarding the
grant of licence/permission to the wood-based industries.
130.2. In each State/UT for which SLC has so far not been
constituted, SLC under the chairmanship of the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests with a representative of the Ministry of
Environment and Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) and an
officer of the State Forest Department/Industries Department not
below the rank of the Chief Conservator of Forests/equivalent rank
will immediately be constituted.
130.3. MoEF is authorised to issue appropriate guidelines in
conformation with the orders and directions issued by this Court and
also the existing guidelines to SLCs relating to assessment of timber
availability for wood-based industries and grant of licence/permission
to the wood-based industries including addition of new machineries
and also utilisation of amounts recovered from the wood-based
industries and connected matters.
130.4. Any person aggrieved by the decision taken by SLC may file
an appeal before MoEFCC seeking appropriate relief within 60 days'
time. If, for any reason, any person is aggrieved by the orders so
passed in the appeal, he may prefer an appropriate
petition/application/appeal before the appropriate forum/court for
grant of appropriate relief(s).
131. We also permit MoEFCC to condone the delay, if any, in filing
an appeal, if sufficient cause is made out by the applicant(s)/appellant
(s).
132. The amounts lying with the respective State Forest Departments
(recovered from wood-based industries) will be utilised for the
purpose of afforestation only.
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-14- 2026:HHC:19496
133. The respective State Forest Departments will intimate the
amount(s) spent by them for afforestation purpose to MoEFCC at the
earliest.
High Court of H.P.
134. With the aforesaid observations and directions, we dispose of
the interlocutory applications/matters specified in Annexure I to the
note supplied by Shri Harish Salve, learned Amicus Curiae.”
20. In compliance with the aforesaid directions, the Ministry
of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (Survey and Utilization
Division) issued the Wood-Based Industries (Establishment and
Regulation) Guidelines, 2016, vide Resolution dated 11.11.2016,
which was amended vide Resolution No.11.09.2017. The relevant
portion of the Resolution dated 11.11.2016 reads as under:-
“ 1. Short Title and commencement.
(i) These guidelines shall be called the Wood-Based Industries
(Establishment and Regulation) Guidelines, 2016.
xx xx xx
2. Definition.
(i) In these guidelines, unless the context otherwise requires –
(a) xx xx xx
(b) xx xx xx
(c) 'License' means a license granted under these guidelines.
Amended as :-
'License' means a license granted under the rules notified by
a State/UT in pursuance of these guidelines.
xx xx xx
(h) 'State Level Committee' means a Committee Constituted by
the State Government under Para 3 (2) of these guidelines.
Amended as :-
'State Level Committee' means a committee constituted by
the State Government under Para 3 (2) of these guidelines.
xx xx xx
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-15- 2026:HHC:19496
(k) 'Wood Based Industry' means any industry which processes
wood as its raw material (Sawmills/veneer/plywood/pulp or
any other form such as sandal, katha wood etc.). It includes a
mill but does not include a furniture unit.
High Court of H.P.
Amended as :-
'Wood Based industry' means any industry which processes
wood as its raw material (Saw mills/veneer/plywood or any
other form such as sandal, katha wood etc.).”
21. In the aforesaid Resolution, Clause 4 pertaining to
powers and functions of the State Level Committee (‘ SLC’ ), was
amended as under:-
“ 4. Powers and functions of the State Level Committee.
The State Level Committee shall:-
(i) Assess the availability of timber for wood based industrial units in
the State/UT every five years.
(ii) Assess quantity of different raw material requirement for wood
based industrial units which may be sustainably harvested from trees
outside forest areas in the State/UT.
(iii) Assess annual requirement of timber and other forest produce in
the domestic markets in the State.
(iv) Maintain a database of timber and other raw materials utilized by
each wood based industrial unit permitted to establish and operate in
the State/UT during each financial year.
(v) Approve appropriate locations for setting up of wood based
industrial units.
(vi) Approve the name of wood based industrial units which may be
considered for grant of fresh license or enhancement of the existing
licensed capacity in case the committee is satisfied that timber is
available legally for the said new Wood Based Industries (such as
Trees outside forest, Forests etc.).
(vii) The State Level Committee will ensure that the amount lying with
the respective State Forest Departments (recovered from Wood
Based Industries) will be utilized for the purpose of afforestation only.
(viii) Examine and make appropriate recommendations on any other
matter referred by the State Government or the Ministry of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change.
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-16- 2026:HHC:19496
Amended as:-
High Court of H.P.
3. The entries under Para- 4 of these guidelines are substituted with
the following:-
The State Level Committee (SLC) shall:--
i. assess the availability of timber in the state by way of
appropriate study on demand and supply as and when it
decides. SLC shall devise suitable mechanism for sustainable
use of timber in a way that does not affect the forests of the
area adversely.
ii. approve the name of wood based industries which may be
considered for grant of fresh license or enhancement of the
existing licensed capacity in case the SLC is satisfied that
timber is available legally for the said new Wood Based
Industries (such as Trees outside forest. Forests etc.).
iii. ensure that the amount lying with the respective Stute Forest
Departments (recovered from Wood Based Industries) is
utilized for the purpose of afforestation only.
iv. examine and make appropriate recommendations or any
other matter referred by the State Government to the Ministry
of Environment. Forest and Climate Change.”
22. In the aforesaid Resolution, Clause 8 pertaining to grant,
renewal and revocation of a license to a wood-based industry, was
amended as under:-
“ 8. Grant, renewal and revocation of a license to a wood based
industry:
(i) No license to a wood based industrial unit shall be granted or
renewed without obtaining prior approval of the State Level
Committee.
(ii) No wood based industrial unit shall be established/ operate in
a State except under and in accordance with the license granted by
an officer authorized by the State Government in this regard
(Preferably DCF/DFO or equivalent).
(iii) The State Level Committee may maintain a separate list of
wood based industries working solely on the timber imported from
international market. The license to such industries shall specifically
contain a condition to the effect that such units shall not be allowed
to use timber produced in country. If in future, the said units want to
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-17- 2026:HHC:19496
use timber produced in the country on account of abundant
availability they will seek specific permission from SLC to do so.The
SLC will ensure that the interests of the units using domestic produce
are protected. Fresh licenses can be granted by the Committee for
units which operate solely on imported raw material irrespective of
the result of wood availability assessment in the State/UT.
High Court of H.P.
(iv) The license granted to a wood based industry shall remain
valid for five years, from the date of such issue or renewal of License.
However, notwithstanding anything contained in these guidelines, the
Licensing Authority may, where there are reasons to believe that the
Licensee is operating the wood based industry in contravention of the
provisions of these guidelines or conditions of License or any Rules
framed by the State Government or is in activities prejudicial to the
interest of forest conservation or public interest, at any time after
giving one month notice, revoke the license granted to such wood
based industry.
(v) Application for renewal of license granted to a wood based
industrial unit shall be made at least three (3) months before the
expiry of validity period.
(vi) Transfer of license on sale/succession etc shall be done only
with the approval of State Level Committee.
Amended as :-
The entries under Para-8 of the Guidelines are substituted with the
following:-
i. No license to a wood based industry shall be granted or
renewed without obtaining prior approval of the SLC.
However, a SLC may delegate the power of renewal of
license to a wood based industry to the Divisional Forest
officers of the concerned Forest Divisions.
ii. Following industries/processing plants not using round logs of
domestic origin or operating without a hand saw or re-saw or
circular saw of more than thirty centimetre diameter shall not
require license. Industries/processing plants which use:
a. sawn timber, cane, bamboo, reed, plywood, veneers
or imported wood, procured from legitimate sources.
b. block board, MDF or similar wood -based products,
procured from legitimate sources
c. round log/timber from species declared as agro-
forestry/agricultural crops and/or exempted from the
purview of the jelling and transit regime in the
concerned state/UT, and procured from legitimate
sources
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-18- 2026:HHC:19496
However, SLC of the concerned State may allow installation
of circular saw of diameter upto 60 centimetre in such industries
having specialized requirement. Such industries shall be registered
with the Forest Department of the concerned state/UT and shall be
regulated, details of which are to be prescribed by the concerned
state/UT.
High Court of H.P.
iii. Transfer of license on sale/succession etc shall be done only
with the approval of SLC.”
23. In compliance of Guidelines dated 11.11.2016, as
amended vide Resolution dated 11.09.2017, Government of
Himachal Pradesh constituted the State Level Committee vide
notification dated 18.11.2017.
24. Certain persons, including respondent No.7-Mast
Mohammad, who were carrying on Katha manufacturing through
traditional means, had preferred CWP No.1942 of 2018 titled
‘ Neelaksh Lakhanpal & Ors. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh &
Anr.,’ seeking directions to the respondents to permit them to
convert their traditional units into mechanized/semi-mechanized
units.
25. On 11.07.2023, 01.08.2023, 28.08.2023 and
12.09.2023, present petitioner in CWP No.10525 of 2025, preferred
representations to the Hon’ble Chief Minister and Additional Chief
Secretary (Forest), Himachal Pradesh, praying for withdrawal of
restrictions imposed under Annexure-A under amended Rule 4 vide
Notification dated 29.04.2008 upon IBR Boilers and for permitting
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-19- 2026:HHC:19496
such units to run at par with other industrial units. It was also prayed
High Court of H.P.
that, till such restrictions were withdrawn, the ban on export of Khair
wood outside the State should not be lifted.
26. Thereafter, Katha Manufacturing Association filed CWP
No.2570 of 2024 titled ‘ Katha Manufacturing Association & Ors.
vs. Union of India & Ors., ’ inter alia , other reliefs, including seeking
quashing of certain portion of Notification dated 29.04.2008, which
were restricting trade and business by Katha bhatties. The Division
Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 26.03.2024, taking into
consideration that some of petitioners had submitted representation
dated 12.09.2023 to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Himanchal
Pradesh as well as Additional Chief Secretary (Forest), highlighting
their grievances and pointing out the necessity for modifying the
notification, and observing that petitioners can approach the SLC
with similar representations to address their grievance, had decided
the petition directing the petitioners to submit their representations
to the SLC and and the SLC was directed to consider the same within
two months and communicate its decision to them.
27. In sequel to the aforesaid order dated 26.03.2024
passed in CWP No.2570 of 2024, the petitioner, in the capacity of
Pradhan of Laghu Katha Udyog, submitted representations to the
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-20- 2026:HHC:19496
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests-cum-Chairman, SLC on
High Court of H.P.
16.04.2024 and 02.05.2024. Vide communication dated 16.05.2024,
he was directed to attend personal hearing on 10.06.2024,
whereafter the proceedings of the meeting held on 10.06.2024 were
communicated to him vide communication dated 24.06.2024.
28. During pendency of CWP No.1942 of 2018, respondent
No.7-Mast Mohammad also preferred CWP No.5967 of 2024 titled
‘Mast Mohammad vs. Union of India & Ors., ’ intending to convert
his traditional Katha Bhatti into Katha Bhatti using IBR boilers at par
with similar permission granted to certain Katha Bhatties with
submission that he had already submitted representation to the
respondent-State.
29. Aforesaid CWP No.5967 of 2024 was decided by a
Division Bench of this Court on 28.06.2024, permitting the petitioner
therein to submit a detailed representation before the competent
authority regarding his grievance, with direction to the competent
authority, upon receipt of such representation, to decide the same
within two weeks and communicate its decision to the petitioner.
30. Respondent No.7-Mast Mohammad had submitted his
representation on 29.06.2024 in pursuance of the order dated
28.06.2024 passed in CWP No.5967 of 2024.
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-21- 2026:HHC:19496
31. Representations submitted by petitioners and
High Court of H.P.
respondent No.7-Mast Mohammad in pursuance of orders passed in
CWP Nos.2570 and 5967 of 2024, along with other similar
th
representations, were placed before the SLC in its 15 meeting held
on 04.07.2024 for consideration.
th
32. The SLC in its 15 meeting held on 04.07.2024, after
taking into consideration the annual Khairwood availability and
consumption in the State as per field data (Forest Department
Committee, 2007) in Table 1; Potential Khairwood Production as per
TOF-R (Forest Survey of India, 2024) in Table 2; Annual Khairwood
availability and consumption in the State as per field data collected
in 2024 in Table 3; Comparative statement of Khairwood availability
w.r.t. 2007, 2024 & (TOF-R) Study by FSI, in Table 4; on the basis
of inference drawn from the critical analysis of the data determining
Current Annual average Khairwood Availability in the State in Table
5; and Maximum annual potential productivity (tentative),
representation of Himachal Katha Manufacturing Association
through its President, i.e. the petitioner (in CWP No.10525/25) was
considered in Agenda No.15.8. Relevant portion thereof is as under:-
“ Agenda item No. 15.8: In continuation to previous SLC meeting
dated 08.05.2024 agenda item No. 14.5.2:
"Discussion on enhancement of installed capacity and
upgradation of machinery of IBR A boilers. Representation by
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-22- 2026:HHC:19496
the Himachal Katha Manufacturing Association through its
President Shri Ashok Kumar response to CWPNo. 2570/2024
titled as Katha Manufacturing Association and others (order
passed dated 26.03.2024)"
High Court of H.P.
xx xx xx
1. Enhancement of installed capacity.
The Association presented its case for enhancing the installed
capacity on account of opening up of green felling in selected forest
divisions and import of khair wood from other states. The main
demand is as follows:
"The restriction of 3750 Qtls khair wood imposed on our IBR
boilers may kindly be withdrawn"
xx xx xx
xx xx xx
Decisions:
In view of above discussion the availability of khair wood production
in the states has shows substantial increase.
SLC is of considered opinion that limits prescribed for Khatta
Bhatties with IBR boilers can be easily enhanced from the
current capacity on account of increased availability of khair
wood in the state considering current level of khair wood
production in the state of HP and also, on the basis of TOF-R
report submitted by Forest Survey of India in 2024. the
Khairwood based industries in the state will be regulated as
following conditions:
a) On the basis of the Current Annual average
Khairwood Availability in the state (Table 5),
Kattha bhattis with IBR boilers will be allowed to
process Khairwood with bark in the range
between 5435 to 7500 quintals in entire year
sourced from within the state of Himachal
Pradesh.
b) There would be no restriction on import of
Khairwood from outside the state.
c) Each Kattha Bhatti with IBR boilers requires to
register its unit afresh with the concerned
DCF/DFO after paying a processing fee of Rs.1 lac.
2. Enhancement in time schedule of operation:
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-23- 2026:HHC:19496
Presently the Katha Bhatties using IBR Boilers are allowed to
operate from November to March. The President Katha Association
demanded enhancement in time limit on following account:
High Court of H.P.
1) For regular maintenance of machinery.
2) For processing Khair Wood that can be imported from
outside the State of HP.
Decision taken
In view of the SLC decision above, IBR boilers may be allowed
to operate throughout the year as it is an industrial activity
capable of running throughout the year. ”
33. In the same meeting in Agenda No.3, representation of
respondent No.7-Mast Mohammad was considered by taking into
consideration the comparison between traditional system and
mechanized system pointed out by the petitioner with the prayer and
arrived at a decision as under:-
“Prayer of applicant:
i) Offending part of the notification dated 29.04.2008 restricting
trade and business of katha bhatties in the State of H.P. may kindly
be modified in view of the subsequent events.
ii) The representation may kindly be allowed to convert
traditional katha bhatties into IBR Boiler as per permissions are
granted to other 39 traditional katha bhatties to convert into IBR
Boilers.
Decision taken:
After detailed discussion, SLC is of the considered view that
the present mode of operation of traditional Kattha Bhattis is highly
inefficient and poses a direct threat to the forests and wildlife through
environmental hazards. Such traditional units are energy inefficient
with limited production efficiency. Moreover, they pose direct
occupational hazards to the labor employed due to lack of safety
provisions. In the context of a) increased Khairwood availability in the
state as per above, and to promote secure, safe and efficient Kattha
extraction and processing in the state, SLC decides the following in
the case of Sh. Mast Mohammad:
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-24- 2026:HHC:19496
a) To promote technical upgradation and to ensure
environmentally safe and economically efficient Kattha
extraction and processing, henceforth, all traditional Kattha
Bhattis will have to be converted to Kattha Bhattis with IBR
boilers. This will ensure uniformity as well as promote security
of the unit through Inspector, Boiler to prevent any possible
industrial damage or loss to the labor.
High Court of H.P.
b) Each traditional Kattha Bhatti which will be converted to
Kattha Bhattis with IBR boilers requires to register its unit
afresh with the concerned DCF/DFO after paying a
processing fee of Rs. 1 lac.
c) Each such newly registered Kattha Bhattis with IBR boilers
will be allowed to process Khairwood with bark in the range
between 5435 to 7500 quintals in entire year sourced from
within the state of Himachal Pradesh.
SLC is also of the considered view that as other traditional Kattha
Bhattis are similarly situated as in the case of Sh. Mast Mohammad,
any owner of other traditional Kattha Bhattis can convert to Katta
Bhatti with IBR boiler with the same conditions as listed above (a to
c).”
34. Respondent No.7-Mast Mohammad was directed by
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (HoFF)-cum-Chairman, State
Level Committee (SLC), vide communication dated 18.07.2024, to
attend his office.
35. On 29.07.2024, minutes of the meeting of the SLC held
on 04.07.2024 were approved by Principal Chief Conservator of
Forests (HoFF)-cum-Chairman, SLC.
36. In the aforesaid backdrop, the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests, Himachal Pradesh, in compliance with order
passed in CWP No.2570 of 2024, passed order dated 30.07.2024
(Annexure R-7/5) by considering and deciding the representation of
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-25- 2026:HHC:19496
the petitioner in terms of the decision taken by the SLC in its meeting
High Court of H.P.
held on 04.07.2024.
37. Similarly, in pursuance of the order passed in CWP
No.5967 of 2024, the representation of respondent No.7-Mast
Mohammad was also considered and decided vide separate order
dated 30.07.2024 (Annexure R-7/6) in terms of decision taken by the
SLC in the said meeting.
38. Thereafter, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, vide
letter dated 31.07.2024 addressed to Principal Secretary (Forest) to
the Government of Himachal Pradesh, submitted a proposal seeking
amendment of Notification dated 29.04.2008 governing the
regulations of Katha Bhatties and Katha Bhatties using IBR Boilers,
particularly with respect to Annexure-A thereof, as per decision
taken by SLC in its meeting held on 04.07.2024 approved on
29.07.2024 and endorsed in two even dated office orders issued on
30.07.2024.
39. The aforesaid communication was considered by the
Government on 07.10.2024 and 15.10.2024 through Additional Chief
Secretary (Forest) to Government of Himachal Pradesh, and vide
communication dated 16.10.2024, requisite information, as
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-26- 2026:HHC:19496
discussed in the meeting, was sought from Principal Chief
High Court of H.P.
Conservator (HoFF), Shimla.
40. In response to aforesaid communication dated
16.10.2024, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (HoFF), vide
letter dated 04.11.2024, submitted the requisite information,
comments and detailed remarks along with Annexure-I, containing
the existing provisions, proposed amendments and justification for
the proposed amendments.
41. In the meanwhile, on 26.09.2024, petitioner preferred an
appeal before the Deputy Director General of Forests-cum-Appellate
Authority, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change,
Regional Office, Chandigarh, as provided under Clause 9(i) and (ii)
of the Guidelines, 2016, assailing the decision dated 04.07.2024
taken by the SLC on certain points.
42. In the interregnum, on 26.10.2024, thirteen applicants,
including Neelaksh Lakhanpal and others, who were petitioners in
CWP No.1942 of 2018, engaged in manufacturing of Katha through
traditional Bhatties, submitted representation to the Principal Chief
Conservator (HoFF) with prayer to consider and decide their
representation, in view of order dated 30.07.2024 passed by
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-27- 2026:HHC:19496
Principal Chief Conservator (HoFF) in compliance of judgment dated
High Court of H.P.
28.06.2024 passed in CWP No.5967 of 2024.
43. On 09.12.2024, CWP No.1942 of 2018 was also decided
by learned Single Bench of this High Court by taking into
consideration order dated 28.06.2024 passed in CWP No.5967 of
2024, directing the competent authority to consider and decide the
representations of the petitioners therein in terms of order dated
30.07.2024 passed by competent authority, i.e. Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests, Himachal Pradesh.
44. The appeal filed by petitioner (in CWP No.10525/2025)
before Appellate Authority on 26.09.2024, against decision of SLC
dated 04.07.2024, was not decided within the period of sixty days,
as prescribed under the Guidelines. Consequently, the petitioner
approached this Court by filing CWP No.15763 of 2024 , titled
Ashok Kumar vs. Union of India and others , which was decided
on 20.12.2024, whereby the Appellate Authority was directed to
decide the appeal within four weeks.
45. In pursuance of the order dated 09.12.2024 passed in
CWP No.1942 of 2018, petitioner-Neelaksh Lakhanpal and others
also submitted separate representations on 27.12.2024 for
consideration of their cases in accordance with decision of the SLC
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-28- 2026:HHC:19496
dated 30.07.2024 and in terms of the directions passed by this Court
High Court of H.P.
vide order dated 09.12.2024 in CWP No.1942 of 2018.
46. Vide communication dated 03.01.2025, petitioner-
Neelaksh Lakhanpal was requested to attend personal hearing on
04.01.2025 by Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (HoFF).
47. Pending consideration representations preferred by the
petitioners in CWP No.1942 of 2018, Principal Chief Conservator of
Forest (HoFF) vide letter No.Ft 783-53(Mgt) Katha Bhatti Vol.IX
dated 04.01.2025 submitted final proposal of necessary
amendments to Government for approval.
48. Vide office order No.11/2025 dated 06.01.2025, the
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, after taking into
consideration the decision of the SLC dated 04.07.2024, concluded
that the petitioners in CWP No.1942 of 2018 could convert their
traditional Katha Bhatties into Katha Bhatties using IBR Boilers after
fulfilling all codal formalities, as prescribed by the SLC in its meeting
held on 04.07.2024, subject to Government approval.
49. Thereafter, on 06.01.2025 itself vide letter No.Ft 42-
1548/2018(Mgt)Neelaksh Lakhan Pal./3339 dated 06.01.2025, the
Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, had communicated the
decision taken vide order No.11/2025 dated 06.01.2025 along with
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-29- 2026:HHC:19496
copy thereof with request to carry out necessary amendment as
High Court of H.P.
proposed vide communication dated 04.01.2025.
50. After undertaking the aforesaid exercise, Government of
Himachal Pradesh, Department of Forest, vide notification dated
15.03.2025, amended Annexure-A of Notification dated 29.04.2008
regarding conditions for regulating working of traditional Katha
Bhatties and Katha Bhatties using IBR boilers with revised Annexure
A-I, relevant conditions whereof are as under:-
“1. Presently, the number of traditional katha bhatties allowed to
operate in H.P. are 40. All: these traditional Katha Bhattis will
have to be converted to Katha Bhatti with /BR boiler subject
to payment of processing fee.
2. Presently, the number of Katha units using IBR boilers are 39,
which was the number of units allowed to install baby boilers
upto 31.03.2007.
2(a) The total.number of katha bhattis with IBR boilers will remain
fixed at 79.
3. All the boilers will have/to be registered with the Chief
Inspector of Boilers of the State.
4. Each such newly registered Kattha Bhattis with IBR boilers
will be allowed to process Khairwood with bark in the range
between 5435 to 7500 quintals in entire year sourced from
within the state of Himachal Pradesh. If at any time the
quantity of khair heartwood of equivalent khair wood with bark
is found to be more than the permissible limit applicable at the
time of inspection, its registration will be cancelled.”
51. In pursuance of the decision taken by the SLC on
04.07.2024 and Notification dated 15.03.2025 issued by the
Government of Himachal Pradesh vide Registration No.3/2025-26,
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-30- 2026:HHC:19496
M/s Priya Katha Udhyog, a proprietary concern of petitioner-Ashok
High Court of H.P.
Kumar, was registered as a depot for extraction of Katha through
Katha Bhatti using IBR Boiler under the provisions of the Timber Act,
1968 and the Rules framed thereunder for a period of one year, on
year-to-year basis, for the year 2025–2026, i.e. from 01.04.2025 to
31.03.2026. The said was granted after deposit of Rs.1,000/- as
registration fee, realized on 07.04.2025 vide HIMGRAN
No.A25D189232 dated 07.04.2025 and Rs.1,00,000/- as processing
fee, realized vide Demand Draft No.668325 dated 29.03.2025, in
terms of the recommendation of the SLC, thereby permitting the
petitioner to process Khairwood with bark allowed in the range of
5435 to 7500 quintals throughout the year, sourced from within the
State of Himachal Pradesh.
52. On 30.04.2025, the appeal preferred by the petitioner (in
CWP No.10525/2025) against decision dated 04.07.2024 of SLC
was dismissed by Appellate Authority.
53. After rejection of appeal on 30.04.2025, petitioner in
CWP No.10525 of 2025 has preferred this writ petition on
01.07.2025, by assailing the Notification dated 29.04.2008 to limited
extent with prayer to set aside decision of the SLC taken with respect
to Agenda No.3 in this meeting held on 04.07.2024 and also to set
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-31- 2026:HHC:19496
aside the order dated 30.04.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority.
High Court of H.P.
Subsequently, challenge has also been laid to Notification dated
15.03.2025 issued by respondent-State to amending Annexure-A
appended to Notification dated 29.04.2008.
54. The petitioner in CWP No.14736 of 2025 has also
preferred this petition on similar lines by filing the same on
10.09.2025.
B. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONERS:
55. In CWP No.10525 of 2025, as also noticed supra ,
Notification dated 29.04.2008 has also been assailed on the ground
that it is arbitrary and discriminatory to the extent that it imposes
restrictions upon Katha Bhatties using IBR Boilers without there
being any intelligible differentia, and, therefore, it is violative of Article
14 as well as Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, because it is not
reasonable restriction, as mentioned in Article 19(6) of the
Constitution.
56. The remaining grounds urged in both petitions are
almost identical.
57. It been contended on behalf of petitioners that decision
th
of the 15 meeting of SLC held on 07.04.2024 related to Agenda
No.3 and also the order dated 30.04.2025 passed in appeal by
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-32- 2026:HHC:19496
Appellate Authority, are arbitrary, inasmuch as the SLC exceeded its
High Court of H.P.
jurisdiction by taking the impugned decision.
58. Referring the directions issued by the Apex Court in T.N.
Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India , reported in (2016)
13 SCC 612 (2) , it has been submitted that neither in the directions
of the Apex Court nor in the Guidelines framed by Ministry of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India,
there is any power to SLC to issue direction for conversion of
category of wood-based industry.
59. It has been further submitted that conversion is a
legislative function in terms of Timber Act, 1968 read with Timber
Rules, 1969, as amended from time to time, but ignoring the same
SLC has passed its impugned decision, which is beyond jurisdiction
and the said fact has also been ignored by Appellate Authority while
dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner.
60. It has been submitted that the decision of the SLC dated
04.07.2024 relating to Agenda No.3, permitting and directing the
traditional Katha Bhatties to be converted into Katha Bhatties using
IBR Boilers, would amount to repealing the sub-classification of
traditional Katha Bhatties and Katha Bhatties using IBR Boilers
introduced under the Timber Rules, 1969, as amended in 2008, and
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-33- 2026:HHC:19496
would also amount to abolishing the categorization of wood-based
High Court of H.P.
industries depots in terms of Rule 2 of the Timber Rules, 1969.
Whereas, the SLC does not have any power to repeal any legislative
Act, dehors the validity of reasons for the same, and therefore, it
amounts to abuse of process of law, and the same is arbitrary and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
61. It has been submitted that, while taking the decision
under Agenda No.3 in the SLC meeting dated 04.07.2024, the SLC
has taken a decision in rem by making this decision applicable to all
traditional Katha Bhatties without there being any representation on
their respective sides, but there was only one representation of
respondent No.7, and therefore, in terms of direction of the Apex
Court and the Guidelines, the SLC has no power to initiate suo motu
proceedings and pass such general directions, as has been passed
with regard to Agenda No.3 in impugned decision dated 04.07.2024.
62. It has been submitted that the power to issue directions
in the nature of mandamus vests only with the High Court or the Apex
Court, whereas the SLC neither was nor is vested with any such
authority to issue directions mandating that all traditional Katha
Bhatties be converted into Katha Bhatties using IBR Boilers and,
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-34- 2026:HHC:19496
therefore, the impugned decision of the SLC is without jurisdiction
High Court of H.P.
and authority of law.
63. It has been submitted that order dated 30.04.2025
passed in appeal is a non-speaking order, having been passed
without proper discussion on the validity and legality of the impugned
decision taken by the SLC.
64. It has been advocated that Guidelines issued by the
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government
of India, provides that function of SLC is to assess the availability of
timber in the State and, while it enhanced its capacity, to satisfy itself
that timber has to be available for future, and other wood-based
industries, and in present case, on one hand the SLC has enhanced
the capacity of Katha Bhatties using IBR Boilers to 7500 quintals, but
by converting all traditional Katha Bhatties to Katha Bhatties using
IBR Boilers, there would be an implied increase of the capacity of
consumption of Khair wood, which would lead to ecological
imbalance, and also would prejudice the petitioners, who have set
up and taken license for Katha Bhatties using IBR Boilers, wherein
this act is contrary to the scope of function, prescribed in the
Guidelines for SLC.
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-35- 2026:HHC:19496
65. It has been submitted that as SLC has no power to
High Court of H.P.
convert or recommend for conversion under existing Rules, not only
decision of the SLC, but also the subsequent conversion order,
recommendation and all consequential action, including amendment
of relevant provision of law, are bad in law and suffers from vice of
excessive delegation, and therefore, impugned amendment vide
notification dated 15.03.2025, is also not sustainable.
66. It has been submitted the action of Principal Chief
Conservator of Forest, Himachal Pradesh, in converting Katha
Bhatties into Katha Bhatties using IBR Boilers, is arbitrary, and he
has taken such decision in January, 2025, despite pendency of the
appeal, in haste and it shows arbitrariness in the action of Principal
Chief Conservator of Forest, Himachal Pradesh.
67. It has been submitted that perusal of Section 3 of the
Timber Act, 1968 demonstrates that it was and is incumbent upon
the Government to publish the draft amendment in the Official
Gazette, invite objections and suggestions, and thereafter publish
the final amendment. However, according to the petitioners, the said
mandatory exercise has never been undertaken while issuing
Notification dated 15.03.2025 and, therefore, the action of the State
is arbitrary and contrary to Section 3 of the Timber Act, 1968.
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-36- 2026:HHC:19496
68. It has been submitted that vide amendment Timber
High Court of H.P.
Rules, 2008, respondent-State has provided setting of two type of
sale depots, i.e. Katha Bhatties and Katha Bhatties using IBR
Boilers, whereas Annexure-A incorporated by Timber Rules, 2008,
provides only regulatory conditions and nothing more, as stated in
the Timber Rules as amended in 2008. Though vide impugned
notification, respondent-State has sought to amend only conditions
and nothing more, however, in the guise of amending the condition,
respondent-State has sought to delete the ‘sale depot’ , which it
incorporated through amendment Timber Rules, 2008, but the said
deletion is being carried out without any amendment, which is
impermissible in law.
69. It has been submitted that, while issuing the impugned
Notification dated 15.03.2025, there was no independent application
of mind by the Executive, inasmuch as the only justification for such
amendment was the implementation of the impugned decision of the
SLC in the case of Mast Mohammad dated 30.07.2024, whereas,
according to the petitioners, the decision of the SLC itself was and is
without jurisdiction and, therefore, the impugned Notification, which
seeks to implement a non est decision, is also bad in law.
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-37- 2026:HHC:19496
70. It has been submitted by learned counsel that it is
High Court of H.P.
evident from the proceedings of the meetings and subsequent office
orders passed by Department of Forest through Principal Chief
Conservator of Forest, Himachal Pradesh, and correspondence
between the Forest Department and the Government as well as
reason for issuing impugned notification dated 15.03.2025, it was not
the recommendation of the SLC, but it was the decision of the SLC,
which has been implemented by the State without applying the mind
by considering it as binding decision, whereas SLC was a
recommendatory body, was not competent to take impugned
decision, and the decision was to be taken by the competent
authority by applying its independent mind.
71. It has been submitted that the issuance of Notification
dated 15.03.2025 when decision of SLC was sub judice before
Appellate Authority in terms of the Guidelines, much prior to passing
of decision dated 30.04.2025 passed by Appellate Authority, was
also impermissible under law.
72. It has been submitted that, throughout the impugned
action, the proceedings of the SLC have been referred to and treated
as a “decision” rather than a “recommendation,” thereby
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-38- 2026:HHC:19496
demonstrating that the SLC exceeded its recommendatory
High Court of H.P.
jurisdiction.
73. It has been submitted that power and role assigned to
the SLC was only to ascertain availability of Khair wood after
undertaking the exercise on the basis of data available from survey,
and that the SLC was not empowered to recommend conversion and
as it has no authority to recommend conversion, the impugned
decision regarding conversion of Katha Bhatties into Katha Bhatties
using IBR Boilers is usurpation of power, which vests in the
legislature, and therefore, decision of the SLC is illegal.
74. It has further been submitted that Annexure A-I has been
notified solely on the basis of the decision of the SLC, without any
independent justification or due consideration by the competent
authority.
75. It has further been submitted that the conditions notified
in Annexure-A appended to the Rules after amendment of Rule 4
form part of the Rules themselves and, therefore, the procedure
prescribed for amendment of the Rules was required to be followed.
According to the petitioners, Notification dated 15.03.2025 has been
issued without adopting the prescribed procedure.
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-39- 2026:HHC:19496
76. It has been submitted that it is settled law that where an
High Court of H.P.
Act prescribes that something is to be done in a particular manner,
the concerned authority is bound to follow that prescribed procedure
alone, and any deviation therefrom would render the decision or
action illegal and non est in the eyes of law.
C. SUBMISSION OF RESPONDENT-STATE:
77. Learned Advocate General has submitted that the issue
involved in the present case pertains to regulation of wood-based
industries, specifically Katha processing units in the State of
Himachal Pradesh, under the overarching framework established by
the Apex Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of
India , reported in (2016) 13 SCC 612 (2) , and the Guidelines issued
by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change,
Government of India, in pursuance thereto.
78. It has been further submitted that the impugned decision
regarding conversion of traditional Katha processing units into Katha
Bhatties using IBR Boilers was taken on the basis of
recommendations of the SLC submitted to the State Government,
but only after due consideration, queries and responses exchanged
between the Government and the Forest Department, culminating
into Government Notification. According to the respondent-State, the
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-40- 2026:HHC:19496
underlying objective was to align the functioning of Katha processing
High Court of H.P.
units with the National mandate of linking processing capacity to
sustainable availability of raw material, thereby preventing ecological
degradation and promoting responsible utilization of forest produce.
79. With the aforesaid submissions, learned Advocate
General has contended that the petitioners have failed to present a
complete and accurate picture of the facts, the regulatory process
and the governing principles underlying regulation of wood-based
industries and the proposed conversion of traditional Katha Bhatties
into Katha Bhatties using IBR Boilers.
80. It has been submitted that the decision taken by the SLC
th
in its 15 meeting held on 04.07.2024 under Agenda No.3 was
essentially a recommendation to the State Government concerning
conversion of traditional Katha Bhatties into Katha Bhatties using
IBR Boilers, stemming from the need to address multiple pending
applications and to bring such units within an effective regulatory
framework, and, therefore, it was not a final unilateral order directing
conversion in rem. The State Government, according to the
respondent-State, independently considered the said
recommendation, raised queries and sought clarifications from the
Forest Department regarding feasibility and implications thereof,
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-41- 2026:HHC:19496
including aspects relating to raw material availability and regulatory
High Court of H.P.
compliance.
81. It has been submitted that the decision to permit
conversion of traditional Katha Bhatties into Katha Bhatties using
IBR Boilers, subject to certain conditions, was and is ultimately
embodied in the Government Notification issued after the aforesaid
process of consideration and deliberation, and that such decision
was not taken solely on the basis of the individual case of respondent
No.7, but also in view of several pending representations received
from similarly situated traditional Katha Bhatti owners seeking such
conversion/ modernization.
82. It has been submitted that the orders passed by the
Apex Court and Guidelines issued by the State, particularly Clause
4(i) of the Guidelines, authorize the SLC to devise suitable
mechanisms for sustainable use of timber in a manner that does not
adversely affect the area of forests.
83. It has been advocated on behalf of the respondent-State
that modernization through IBR Boilers, which are significantly more
efficient in extraction of Katha from Khairwood as compared to
traditional methods and which often utilize wood chips, potentially
sourced from non-forest areas or processing residue, as fuel, is a
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-42- 2026:HHC:19496
step towards more efficient raw material utilization and minimization
High Court of H.P.
of waste of valuable Khair resource. Such conversion, according to
the respondent-State, would contribute not only to sustainable use
of primary raw material, but also in increasing the overall processing
capacity. It has been submitted that this crucial aspect has been
entirely omitted by the petitioners while presenting the facts.
84. It has been submitted that after taking into consideration,
the recommendations of SLC, Government took a policy decision,
which fundamentally aimed at bringing unregulated units within
regulated units framework by attempting to balance economic
activity with ecological mandate of sustainable resource use, guided
by the principles emanating from the Apex Court, such as principle
of sustainable development and precautionary principle. It has been
further submitted that precautionary principal requires anticipatory
action to be taken to prevent harm, and it is not always necessary
that there should be direct evidence of harm to the environment.
85. Referring Scientific Assessment Report, placed on
record as Annexure R-6/1 with reply of the State, it has been
submitted that in compliance with the mandate of the Apex Court and
the applicable Guidelines framed by the Ministry of Environment and
Forest and Climate Change, prior to recommending the framework
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-43- 2026:HHC:19496
for conversion of traditional Bhatties into IBR Boiler units, the Forest
High Court of H.P.
Department conducted a thorough scientific assessment of
availability of Khairwood in the State and the SLC's
recommendations as well as the subsequent Government
notifications were made after due consideration of finding of this
assessment, aiming to ensure that any permitted conversion and
resulting capacity remained aligned with sustainably available raw
material.
86. It has been submitted that the recommendations and
decision of the SLC is in consonance with the order passed by the
Apex Court on 05.10.2015 in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs.
Union of India , reported in (2016) 13 SCC 612 (2) .
87. It has been submitted that in Clause 4(i) of the
Guidelines 2016, amended in 2017, explicitly requires the SLC to
devise a suitable mechanism for sustainable use of timber in a
manner that it does not adversely affect the forest of the area by
assessing the availability of timber in the State by way of appropriate
study on demand and supply.
88. It has been submitted that the SLC was constituted for a
specific purpose, which includes, inter alia , the function of assessing
timber availability and regulating grant of license and enhancement
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-44- 2026:HHC:19496
of capacity strictly on the basis of sustainable raw material
High Court of H.P.
availability and the impugned decision/recommendation of the SLC
is in consonance with such functions.
89. In order to substantial the plea that several pending
applications received from traditional Katha Bhatties owners seeking
permission for conversion into IBR Boilers units, copies of such
applications/requests have been placed on record along with reply
as Annexure R-6/2 to R-6/14. Referring these applications, it has
been submitted that the SLC considered the representation of
respondent No.7-Mast Mohammad in a broader context so as to
devise a framework applicable to all similarly situated units seeking
modernization through IBR boilers. It has been submitted that these
applicants had already filed CWP No.1942 of 2018 in the year 2018
for the same purpose.
90. It has been submitted that it is not a mandamus issued
in rem, but it is a decision taken after considering the survey report,
which has already been referred by the SLC while considering
Agenda No.15.8, wherein data received from field agencies have
been reproduced in various tables, and therefore, the SLC has not
exceeded its jurisdiction, as it has recommended/taken decision by
addressing the numerous pending requests with reference to
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-45- 2026:HHC:19496
availability of the Khair wood, which was available with the
High Court of H.P.
committee in that meeting. Therefore, it has been submitted, the
decision taken by the SLC under Agenda No.3 is not a legislative act
in rem, but a recommendation or proposal, forwarded to the State
Government within a regulatory framework.
91. It has been submitted that it is not a case where
recommendations or decision of the SLC, in the shape of decision
under Agenda No.3, were the sole basis for issuance of Notification
dated 15.03.2025. Rather, on the basis of decision of the SLC, the
Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Himachal Pradesh, submitted
the matter for consideration of the Government, whereafter due
deliberations were undertaken, as is evident from the record and
other communications placed on record, and only thereafter the
impugned notification was issued after subjective satisfaction of the
competent authority.
92. It has been further submitted that Appellate Authority
while deciding the appeal preferred by petitioner (in CWP No.10525
of 2024), has also duly considered the prayers of the petitioner and
the proceedings of the SLC, and after taking into account the entire
material before it, has dismissed the appeal. Therefore, it has been
contended that the order passed by the Appellate Authority, in no
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-46- 2026:HHC:19496
manner, can be said to be a non-speaking order passed without
High Court of H.P.
assigning reasons.
93. Learned Additional Advocate General has further
submitted that, in no manner, decision of the respondents is violative
of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, inasmuch as the conditions
framed for regulating Katha Bhatties, which are wood-based
industries, constitute reasonable restrictions in public interest aimed
at conserving forests, preventing illegal felling and ensuring
sustainable resource management.
94. It has been submitted by learned Advocate General that,
vide notification dated 15.03.2025, there has been no amendment to
the Rules themselves, but only the regulatory terms contained in
Annexure-A have been reframed, and therefore, there was no
necessity for pre-publication of Annexure A-I as is required for
amendment of the Rules. In the alternative, it has been submitted
that, in case it is considered that the pre-publication of Annexure A-I
was required, even then failure in pre-publication will not render
Notification dated 15.03.2025 illegal, as in the Rules, pre-publication
is directory in nature, because it does not provide any consequences
for not publishing the draft notification before issuance of final
notification.
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-47- 2026:HHC:19496
95. Report on Inventory of Trees Outside Forest Rural
High Court of H.P.
(TOF-R) in Himachal Pradesh, published by Forest Survey of India,
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government
of India, placed on record as Annexure R-1 along with the reply filed
by the State, has been referred by learned Advocate General for
demonstrating availability of Khair wood in the State of Himachal
Pradesh and for justifying the recommendations/decision of the SLC
taken in its meeting held on 04.07.2024
96. With regard to policy decision, learned Advocate
General has placed reliance upon following paras of judgment of the
Apex Court in Balco Employees’ Union (Regd.) vs. Union of India
& Ors. , reported in (2002) 2 SCC 333 :-
“46. It is evident from the above that it is neither within the domain
of the Courts nor the scope of the judicial review to embark upon an
enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise or whether
better public policy can be evolved. Nor are our Courts inclined to
strike down a policy at the behest of a petitioner merely because it
has been urged that a different policy would have been fairer or wiser
or more scientific or more logical.
xx xx xx
92. In a democracy, it is the prerogative of each elected
Government to follow it's own policy. Often a change in Government
may result in the shift in focus or change in economic policies. Any
such change may result in adversely affecting some vested interests.
Unless any illegality is committed in the execution of the policy or the
same is contrary to law or mala fide, a decision bringing about change
cannot per se be interfered with by the Court.”
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-48- 2026:HHC:19496
97. Learned Advocate General has also referred to the
High Court of H.P.
following paras of the decision of the Apex Court in Divisional
Manager Aravali Golf Club & Anr. vs. Chander Hass & Anr. ,
reported in (2008) 1 SCC 683 :-
“17. Before parting with this case we would like to make some
observations about the limits of the powers of the judiciary. We are
compelled to make these observations because we are repeatedly
coming across cases where Judges are unjustifiably trying to perform
executive or legislative functions. In our opinion this is clearly
unconstitutional. In the name of judicial activism Judges cannot cross
their limits and try to take over functions which belong to another
organ of the State.
18. Judges must exercise judicial restraint and must not encroach
into the executive or legislative domain vide Indian Drugs &
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, (2007) 1 SCC 408 and S.C.
Chandra v. State of Jharkhand, (2007) 8 SCC 279.
19. Under our Constitution, the Legislature, Executive and
Judiciary all have their own broad spheres of operation. Ordinarily it
is not proper for any of these three organs of the State to encroach
upon the domain of another, otherwise the delicate balance in the
Constitution will be upset, and there will be a reaction.
20. Judges must know their limits and must not try to run the
Government. They must have modesty and humility, and not behave
like Emperors. There is broad separation of powers under the
Constitution and each organ of the State - the legislature, the
executive and the judiciary - must have respect for the others and
must not encroach into each other’s domains.”
98. Learned Advocate General has also referred to the
following paras of the decision of the Apex Court in Brij Mohan Lal
vs. Union of India & Ors. , reported in (2012) 6 SCC 502 :-
“96. It is a settled principle of law that matters relating to framing
and implementation of policy primarily fall in the domain of the
Government. It is an established requirement of good governance
that the Government should frame policies which are fair and
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-49- 2026:HHC:19496
beneficial to the public at large. The Government enjoys freedom in
relation to framing of policies. It is for the Government to adopt any
particular policy as it may deem fit and proper and the law gives it
liberty and freedom in framing the same. Normally, the Courts would
decline to exercise the power of judicial review in relation to such
matters. But this general rule is not free from exceptions. The Courts
have repeatedly taken the view that they would not refuse to
adjudicate upon policy matters if the policy decisions are arbitrary,
capricious or mala fide.
High Court of H.P.
xx xx xx
98. We must examine the cases where this Court has stepped in
and exercised limited power of judicial review in matters of policy. In
Asif Hameed v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Anr. [1989 Suppl.(2)
SCC 364], this Court noticed that, where a challenge is to the action
of the State, the Court must act in accordance with law and determine
whether the State has acted within the powers and functions
assigned to it under the Constitution. If not, it must strike down the
action, of course, with due caution. Normally, the Courts do not give
directions or advise in such matters. This Court held as under: -
“19. When a State action is challenged, the function of the
court is to examine the action in accordance with law and to
determine whether the legislature or the executive has acted
within the powers and functions assigned under the
Constitution and if not, the court must strike down the action.
While doing so the court must remain within its self-imposed
limits. The court sits in judgment on the action of a coordinate
branch of the Government. While exercising power of judicial
review of administrative action, the court is not an Appellate
Authority. The Constitution does not permit the court to direct
or advise the executive in matters of policy or to sermonize
qua any matter which under the Constitution lies within the
sphere of legislature or executive, provided these authorities
do not transgress their constitutional limits or statutory
powers.”
(emphasis supplied)
99. It is also a settled cannon of law that the Government has the
authority and power to not only frame its policies, but also to change
the same. The power of the Government, regarding how the policy
should be shaped or implemented and what should be its scope, is
very wide, subject to it not being arbitrary or unreasonable. In other
words, the State may formulate or reformulate its policies to attain its
obligations of governance or to achieve its objects, but the freedom
so granted is subject to basic Constitutional limitations and is not so
absolute in its terms that it would permit even arbitrary actions.
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-50- 2026:HHC:19496
100. Certain tests, whether this Court should or not interfere in the
policy decisions of the State, as stated in other judgments, can be
summed up as:
High Court of H.P.
(I) If the policy fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness,
it would be unconstitutional.
(II) The change in policy must be made fairly and should
not give impression that it was so done arbitrarily on any
ulterior intention.
(III) The policy can be faulted on grounds of mala fide,
unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness etc.
(IV) If the policy is found to be against any statute or the
Constitution or runs counter to the philosophy behind these
provisions.
(V) It is dehors the provisions of the Act or Legislations.
(VI) If the delegate has acted beyond its power of
delegation.
101. Cases of this nature can be classified into two main classes:
one class being the matters relating to general policy decisions of the
State and the second relating to fiscal policies of the State. In the
former class of cases, the Courts have expanded the scope of judicial
review when the actions are arbitrary, mala fide or contrary to the law
of the land; while in the latter class of cases, the scope of such judicial
review is far narrower. Nevertheless, unreasonableness,
arbitrariness, unfair actions or policies contrary to the letter, intent
and philosophy of law and policies expanding beyond the permissible
limits of delegated power will be instances where the Courts will step
in to interfere with government policy.”
D. SUBMISSION OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT(S)
99. Learned counsel for the private respondents by referring
to the history of establishment of traditional Katha Bhatties,
mechanized units and conversion of Katha Bhatties using IBR
Boilers since 1975 till date, as well as the litigation by way of various
petitions filed from the year 1993, has submitted that, in terms of the
directions issued by this Court vide judgment dated 07.04.2011
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-51- 2026:HHC:19496
passed in CWP No.1301 of 2006 titled ‘ Yogendra Chandra vs.
High Court of H.P.
State of H.P. & Ors. ’, a scientific survey was required to be
conducted by the respondent-State within a period of six months for
the purpose of renewing licenses. However, since no such survey
was conducted for sufficiently long period, CWP No.1942 of 2018
came to be filed by some persons, who were intending conversion
of their tradition Katha Bhatties into mechanized units, and
ultimately, survey was completed in the year 2023 and the same was
placed before the SLC, which become basis for taking
decision/making recommendations with respect to representations
of the petitioners as well as the private respondents related to
th
Agenda Item No.15.8 and Agenda No.3 of 15 meeting of SLC held
on 04.07.2024.
100. It has been submitted that, in fact, there is no substantial
difference between persons manufacturing Katha through traditional
Bhatties and those manufacturing Katha through IBR Boilers, except
quantum of consumption of wood, raw material utilization and output,
and Katha Bhatties using IBR Boilers are more beneficial from the
standpoint of ecology and sustainable use of resources. Therefore,
according to private respondents, the impugned recommendation
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-52- 2026:HHC:19496
regarding conversion of traditional Katha Bhatties to Katha Bhatties
High Court of H.P.
with IBR Boilers, is well within the domain of the SLC.
101. It has been further submitted that, in fact, it is not a
conversion, but establishment of fresh Katha Bhatties using IBR
Boilers, because such units are required to be registered, processed
and established independently by undertaking the prescribed
procedure, like a fresh Katha Bhatti. Though the word ‘conversion’
has been used, yet, in effect, it is establishment of Katha Bhatties
using IBR Boilers in place of traditional Katha Bhatties, and there is
no automatic conversion unless the requisite process is completed
and the equipment is installed afresh.
102. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the private
respondents that, in the very meeting held on 04.07.2024, on the
basis of same survey report, recommendations have been made by
the SLC for enhancement of capacity of the petitioner and permitted
use of Khair wood throughout the year. However, the petitioner is not
aggrieved by that part of the decision and, rather, in consequence
thereof, he himself applied for enhancement of his capacity by
depositing Rs.1,00,000/- and availed such benefit, as is evident from
Registration Certificate No.3 of 2025 dated 07.04.2025 (Annexure R-
7/4) issued in his favour by the competent authority.
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-53- 2026:HHC:19496
103. It has been further submitted that petitioners and the
High Court of H.P.
private respondents are competitor in the same business and
petitioners, being in advantageous position, are abusing the
dominant position to refrain the private respondents to convert their
Katha Bhatties into Katha Bhatties using IBR Boilers, despite the fact
that they themselves got permission for manufacturing Katha using
IBR Boilers as far back as in 1992-93. According to the private
respondents, the present petitions are, therefore, motivated and
intended to restrain competitors rather than protect legality.
104. It has been submitted that like the petitioners, private
respondents have also invested huge money for installation of
mechanized units in crores and have deposited Rs.1,00,000/- for
Katha Bhatties using IBR Boilers, but petitioners with intention to ruin
them have filed present petitions and obtained restraint order against
the private respondents, which according to private respondents is
definitely an abuse of position, as petitioners have already got
benefitted of the decision taken by the SLC in the same meeting on
the basis of the same Survey Report.
105. It has been submitted that the directions passed by the
Apex Court as well as the Guidelines issued by Ministry of
Environment and Forest and Climate Change in sequel to direction
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-54- 2026:HHC:19496
of the Apex Court, clearly depicts that the SLC was vested with
High Court of H.P.
jurisdiction to take decision for making recommendations related to
Agenda No.3 as has been recommended and decided by the SLC.
106. It has been submitted that the petitioners have failed to
point out any illegality or irregularity committed at any stage by any
authority, while considering the case of the private respondents,
which is similar to that of the petitioners. It has been submitted that,
in case decision in Agenda Item No.3 is to be considered as a
legislative act, on the ground that instead of recommendation,
decision has been taken by the SLC, then, on the same analogy, the
decision under Agenda Item No.15.8 also amounts to legislative act
by the SLC, and in case it is prohibited for Agenda No.3, then
certainly decision taken in case of petitioner in Agenda Item No.15.8
is also illegal and unconstitutional as the case of the petitioner on
this count is similarly situated to the private respondents.
107. Learned counsel for the private respondents has
submitted that the petitioners are estopped from challenging
Notification dated 29.04.2008, as they have availed its benefits.
108. Learned counsel for private respondents, referring
judgment of the Apex Court in The Nagar Rice & Flour Mills & Ors.
vs. N. Teekappa Gowda & Bros. & Ors. , reported in (1970) 1 SCC
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-55- 2026:HHC:19496
575 , has submitted that, though there is a right to carry on business
High Court of H.P.
and such right is a Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution, yet its exercise is subject to reasonable restrictions
imposed by law in the interest of the general public under Article
19(6) of the Constitution. It has been further submitted that the
restrictions imposed through the regulatory conditions in Annexure
A-I are reasonable and in public interest.
109. Learned counsel for private respondents has placed
reliance upon the following paras of the decision of the Apex Court
in State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. vs. Uday Education and Welfare
Trust & Anr. , reported in (2024) 16 SCC 781 :-
“56. It is thus seen that vide the said order, SLCs were authorized to
take decisions regarding the grant of license/permission to the WBIs.
Vide the said order, it was also directed to constitute SLC under the
Chairmanship of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest with a
representative of MOEFCC and an officer of the State Forest
Department/Industries Department not below the rank of the Chief
Conservator of Forests/equivalent rank. This Court further directed
the SLCs to be constituted in each State/Union Territory for which the
SLC was not yet constituted. The MOEF was also authorized to
issue appropriate guidelines in conformity with the orders and
directions issued by this Court and also the existing guidelines to the
SLCs relating to the assessment of timber availability for WBIs.
Appeals could be filed before MOEFCC against the decision of the
SLC.
xx xx xx
64. It is to be noted that after this Court allowed the licenses to be
issued to the closed sawmills vide order dated 1-9-2006, the SLCs
were constituted. The permissions were to be granted on the
recommendations of the CEC. Vide order dated 18-5-2007, this Court
had also accepted the recommendation of the CEC. Vide another
order dated 30-4-2010, this Court permitted additional licenses to be
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-56- 2026:HHC:19496
granted if additional timber was available. Accordingly, licenses were
granted between 2010 and 2015. Vide subsequent order dated 5-10-
2015, this Court allowed the grant of license/permission to unlicensed
WBIs in the country. This Court had directed the reconstitution of the
SLCs for WBIs. In pursuance of the directions issued by this Court,
the 2016 Guidelines were issued by the MoEFCC. As per the 2016
Guidelines, the SLC was reconstituted in the State of Uttar Pradesh
on 17-5-2017.
High Court of H.P.
65. One of the duties which was cast upon the SLC was to assess
the availability of timber for wood based industrial units in the State.
The SLC was to assess the availability of timber by commissioning
studies, preferably in collaboration with institutes/universities of
repute, once in five years.
xx xx xx
84. It can thus be seen that the decision of the SLC for not getting
the assessment done by the IPIRTI is based on sound reasons.
When the 2016 Guidelines itself provided for the consumption of
timber by WBIs based on the report of the IPIRTI, there was no
purpose to again get the assessment done by IPIRTI. The scope of
judicial review has been succinctly explained by this court in the case
1
of Tata Cellular vs. Union of India , which has been consistently
followed in a catena of cases. This Court, in the said case, observed
thus: (SCC pp. 677-78, para 77)
“77. The duty of the court is to confine itself to the
question of legality. Its concern should be:
1. Whether a decision-making authority exceeded its
powers?
2. Committed an error of law,
3. committed a breach of the rules of natural justice,
4. reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal
would have reached or,
5. abused its powers.
Therefore, it is not for the court to determine whether a
particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfilment of
that policy is fair. It is only concerned with the manner in which
those decisions have been taken. The extent of the duty to
act fairly will vary from case to case. Shortly put, the grounds
upon which an administrative action is subject to control by
judicial review can be classified as under:
1
(1994) 6 SCC 651
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-57- 2026:HHC:19496
(i) Illegality : This means the decision-maker must
understand correctly the law that regulates his
decision-making power and must give effect to it.
High Court of H.P.
(ii) Irrationality, namely, Wednesbury
unreasonableness.
(iii) Procedural impropriety.
The above are only the broad grounds but it does not
rule out addition of further grounds in course of time. As a
matter of fact, in R. v. Secretary of State for the Home
Department, ex Brind [(1991) 1 AC 696] , Lord Diplock refers
specifically to one development, namely, the possible
recognition of the principle of proportionality. In all these
cases the test to be adopted is that the court should, ‘consider
whether something has gone wrong of a nature and degree
which requires its intervention’.”
xx xx xx
107. Though we find that for the sustainable development of the
State and on account of the availability of the timber, sanction of
granting licenses can be permitted to continue, however, as a
responsible State, it needs to ensure that environmental concerns are
duly attended to. We, therefore, direct the State Government to
ensure that while granting permission for felling trees of the prohibited
species, it should strictly ensure that the permission is granted only
when the conditions specified in the Notification dated 7-1-2020 are
satisfied. The State Government shall also ensure that when such
permissions are granted to the applicants, the applicants
scrupulously follow the mandate in the said notification of planting 10
trees against 1 and maintaining them for five years.”
110. Learned counsel for the private respondents has also
adopted and relied upon the submissions advanced on behalf of the
respondent-State in support of the impugned action.
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-58- 2026:HHC:19496
E. PLEA IN REBUTTAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
High Court of H.P.
111. In response to the plea of the respondent-State that the
impugned action constitutes a policy decision with which this Court
ought not ordinarily to interfere, learned counsel for the petitioners
has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in
State of T.N. and Anr. vs. P. Krishnamurty & Ors. , reported in
(2006) 4 SCC 517 by referring following paragraphs:-
“ Whether the Rule is valid in entirety?
15. There is a presumption in favour of constitutionality or validity
of a sub-ordinate Legislation and the burden is upon him who attacks
it to show that it is invalid. It is also well recognized that a sub-ordinate
legislation can be challenged under any of the following grounds :-
a) Lack of legislative competence to make the sub-
ordinate legislation.
b) Violation of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the
Constitution of India.
c) Violation of any provision of the Constitution of India.
d) Failure to conform to the Statute under which it is
made or exceeding the limits of authority conferred by
the enabling Act.
e) Repugnancy to the laws of the land, that is, any
enactment.
f) Manifest arbitrariness/unreasonableness (to an extent
where court might well say that Legislature never
intended to give authority to make such Rules).
16. The court considering the validity of a sub-ordinate
Legislation, will have to consider the nature, object and scheme of
the enabling Act, and also the area over which power has been
delegated under the Act and then decide whether the subordinate
Legislation conforms to the parent Statute. Where a Rule is directly
inconsistent with a mandatory provision of the Statute, then, of
course, the task of the court is simple and easy. But where the
contention is that the inconsistency or non- conformity of the Rule is
not with reference to any specific provision of the enabling Act, but
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-59- 2026:HHC:19496
with the object and scheme of the Parent Act, the court should
proceed with caution before declaring invalidity.
High Court of H.P.
17. In Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of
India [1985 (1) SCC 641], this Court referred to several grounds on
which a subordinate legislation can be challenged as follows: (SCC
p.689, para 75)
"75. A piece of subordinate legislation does not
carry the same degree of immunity which is enjoyed by a
statute passed by a competent legislature. Subordinate
legislation may be questioned on any of the grounds on which
plenary legislation is questioned. In addition it may also be
questioned on the ground that it does not conform to the
statute under which it is made. It may further be questioned
on the ground that it is contrary to some other statute. That is
because subordinate legislation must yield to plenary
legislation. It may also be questioned on the ground that it is
unreasonable, unreasonable not in the sense of not being
reasonable, but in the sense that it is manifestly arbitrary."
[Emphasis supplied]”
112. It has been submitted on behalf of petitioners that the
aforesaid judgment has also been followed by the Constitution
Bench of the Apex Court in Association for Democratic Reforms
and Anr. (Electoral Bond Scheme) vs. Union of India & Ors. ,
reported in (2024) 5 SCC 1 , and referred para of the judgment reads
as under:-
2
“203. In Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd. v. CST , a
Constitution Bench of this Court held that a subordinate legislation is
ancillary to the statute. Therefore, the delegate must enact the
subordinate legislation “consistent with the law under which it is made
and cannot go beyond the limits of the policy and standard laid down
in the law.” Since the power delegated by a statute is limited by its
terms, the delegate is expected to “act in good faith, reasonably, intra
vires the power granted and on relevant consideration of material
2
(1974) 4 SCC 98
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-60- 2026:HHC:19496
3
facts.” This Court has to be cognizant of this distinction. In fact, the
doctrine of manifest arbitrariness, as developed by this Court in
4
Indian Express Newspapers in the context of subordinate legislation,
was applicable to the extent that “it is so arbitrary that it could not be
said to be in conformity with the statute or that it offends Article 14 of
5
the Constitution.” ”
High Court of H.P.
113. In response to the plea of estoppel raised by learned
counsel for the private respondents, learned counsel for the
petitioners has submitted that the grievance raised in the
representations, appeal as well as in the present petitions is confined
to assailing Notification dated 29.04.2008 only to the extent it
imposes restrictions on Katha Bhatties using IBR Boilers and the
restriction on export of Khair wood outside the State. It has been
submitted that the petitioners have neither challenged the remaining
conditions of the said Notification nor sought to assail the same and,
therefore, they are not precluded from questioning the Notification to
the limited extent to which it adversely affects them.
114. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that
provisions of the Competition Act, 2002, are not applicable in present
case and for attracting the provisions of the said Act, the allegations
3
Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, (1990) 3 SCC 223
4
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. V. Union of India, (985) 1 SCC 641
5
In Khoday Distilleries Ltd. V. State of Karnataka, (1996) 10 SCC 304, this Court reiterated Indian Express
Newspapers (supra) by holding that a delegated legislation is manifestly arbitrary if it “could not be reasonably
expected to emanate from an authority delegated with the law-making power.” Similarly, in State of Tamil Nadu
v. P Krishnamurthy, (2006) 4 SCC 517 this Court held that subordinate legislation can be challenged on the
ground of manifest arbitrariness to an extent “where the court might well say that the legislature never intended
to give authority to make such rules.”
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-61- 2026:HHC:19496
are required to be established through an inquiry as provided under
High Court of H.P.
Section 19 by the Commission constituted under Section 7 of the
said Act. Mere allegations, without such inquiry, as contemplated
under the Act, are of no consequence. Whereas respondent No.7
has not approached the Commission constituted under the Act with
any such complaint.
115. It has been further submitted that the benefit availed by
the petitioners on the basis of the decision of the SLC is only with
respect to enhancement of capacity, as the SLC had express power
under the Guidelines, 2016 in relation to enhancement and,
therefore, the same has not been challenged and the petitioners
have availed the benefit thereof.
116. It has been submitted that the petitioner (in CWP
No.10525 of 2025) had a right to file an appeal, which he duly availed
by assailing the decision of the SLC before the Appellate Authority,
and, after dismissal of the appeal, he also have a right to maintain
the present writ petition (CWP No.10525 of 2025), there being no
other efficacious alternative remedy available. Rather, the
Guidelines itself provides that the decision of the Appellate Authority
can be assailed further in accordance with law and, except by way
of judicial review, no other remedy is available to the petitioner, he
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-62- 2026:HHC:19496
thus has locus standi and cause of action to file and maintain the
High Court of H.P.
petition (CWP No.10525 of 2025).
117. It has been submitted that the plea of the respondent-
State and the private respondents that the impugned decision of the
SLC is merely a recommendation is not a correct version, inasmuch
as the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Himachal Pradesh
and the Government itself have not treated it merely as a
recommendation, but rather as a decision of the SLC to be
implemented and, therefore, according to the petitioners, the SLC
exceeded its jurisdiction by taking a decision instead of confining
itself to making recommendations.
118. In response to the plea that there was no requirement of
prior publication for amending the conditions regulating Katha
Bhatties, it has been submitted that, as the Notification has been
issued under Section 3 of the Timber Act, 1968, prior publication was
necessary, as provided under Section 3(3) itself. Therefore, it has
been contended that non-publication of the draft notification is fatal
and renders Notification dated 15.03.2025 illegal and non est .
F. ANALYSES AND CONCLUSION
119. In order dated 05.10.2025 passed by the Apex Court in
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India , reported in
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-63- 2026:HHC:19496
(2016) 13 SCC 612 (2) , in para 130.1, it has been ordered that the
High Court of H.P.
State Level Committees (SLCs) for wood-based industries (WBIs)
are authorized to take decisions regarding grant of
licence/permission to wood-based industries.
120. In para 130.3 of the aforesaid judgment, it has been
further directed that Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate
Change is authorised to issue appropriate Guidelines in conformity
with the orders and directions issued by Apex Court as well as the
existing Guidelines to SLCs relating to assessment of timber
availability for wood-based industries and grant of
license/permission to wood-based industries, including ‘ addition of
new machineries .’
121. In the Guidelines 2016 dated 11.11.2016, amended vide
Resolution dated 11.09.2017, Clause 4 pertaining to Power and
Functions of State Level Committee provides that SLC shall assess
the availability of timber in State by way of appropriate study, devise
suitable mechanism for sustainable use of timber in a manner that
does not affect the forest of the area adversely, and also to approve
the name of wood-based industries which may be considered for
‘ grant of fresh license ’ or ‘ enhancement of existing licensed
capacity ’, subject to satisfaction of the SLC regarding legally
available timber, including trees outside forests.
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-64- 2026:HHC:19496
122. Clause 8 of the aforesaid Guidelines, 2016, as amended
High Court of H.P.
in 2017, provides that no licence to a wood-based industry shall be
granted or renewed without obtaining prior approval of the SLC,
though the SLC is also at liberty to delegate powers of renewal of
licence to the Divisional Forest Officer of the concerned Forest
Division.
123. Bare reading of the order of the Supreme Court and the
Guidelines issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and
Climate Change makes it apparent that it is within the domain of the
SLC to consider grant of licence/permission to wood-based
industries, including addition of new machineries , as also grant of
fresh licence or enhancement of existing licensed capacity , subject
to satisfaction regarding legal availability of timber, and that no
licence to a wood-based industry can be granted without prior
approval of the SLC .
124. Para 130.3 of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court,
Clause 4.2 read with Clause 8.1 of the aforesaid Guidelines, 2016,
amended in 2017, in unambiguous terms, mandate that for
enhancement of capacity or for fresh license to establish wood-
based industry, recommendation of SLC is mandatory. Therefore, it
is within the domain of the SLC to determine matters relating to grant
of fresh license or to enhance the capacity, subject to survey report
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-65- 2026:HHC:19496
and sustainable timber availability, though such decision is thereafter
High Court of H.P.
to be communicated to and considered by the competent authority,
including the Government, for implementation or otherwise.
125. In view of above, it is definitely in domain and jurisdiction
of the SLC to recommend or decide matters relating to conversion of
traditional Katha Bhatties into Katha Bhatties using IBR Boilers for
enhancing the existing licensed capacity by converting traditional
Katha Bhatties into new WBI, i.e. Katha Bhatties using IBR Boilers.
Without recommendation or decision of the SLC, no traditional Katha
Bhatties could have been permitted to be converted into Katha
Bhatties using IBR Boilers. Though the word ‘conversion’ has been
used by the SLC, in effect, as evident from the decision as well as
the impugned Notification issued pursuant thereto, it is not a
conversion, but the enhancement of capacity of Katha Bhatties
instead of using traditional handies to run the Katha Bhatties using
IBR Boilers. In case, as observed by this Division Bench in CWP
No.1301 of 2006 that there is no difference in traditional Katha
Bhatties and Katha Bhatties using IBR Boilers, inasmuch as both are
engaged in manufacture of Katha, then the impugned decision of the
SLC would amount to addition of new machinery to already existing
traditional Katha Bhatties, which is also permissible for consideration
by the SLC, as is apparent from para 130.3 of the judgment dated
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-66- 2026:HHC:19496
05.10.2015 (supra) passed by the Apex Court, as well as the
High Court of H.P.
Guidelines, 2016, as amended in 2017.
126. Even otherwise, in case both Katha Bhatti units are
treated as independent of each other, then permission to convert
traditional Katha Bhatties into Katha Bhatties using IBR Boilers
would amount to establishment of a fresh wood-based industry, for
which grant of fresh licence would be necessary. In that eventuality
also, as provided in para 130.3 of the judgment dated 05.10.2015
(supra), grant of licence/permission to wood-based industries is
within the domain of the SLC. Similarly, as per Clause 4(ii) of the
Guidelines, 2016, grant of fresh licence is subject to approval of the
SLC and, therefore, for such conversion, recommendation/decision
of the SLC is a pre-condition. Thus, the decision taken by the SLC in
Agenda No.3 of the meeting held on 04.07.2024 is within its
jurisdiction.
127. Conversion of traditional Katha Bhatties into Katha
Bhatties using IBR Boilers is also in consonance with the duties
assigned to the SLC, which require it to consider legally available
timber, including timber from trees outside forests, and to devise
mechanisms for sustainable use of timber without adversely
affecting forests. It has also come on record that traditional Katha
Bhatties involve greater wastage of raw material and forest timber,
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-67- 2026:HHC:19496
whereas Katha Bhatties using IBR Boilers ensure comparatively
High Court of H.P.
lesser wastage of raw material and can also utilize chips available
from outside forest areas. This aspect is relevant for the SLC to
assess the availability of timber on the basis of appropriate study,
which has been placed on record by the respondent-State as
Annexure R-1 with its reply.
128. In view of the above observations, this Court is of the
considered opinion that, in light of the order passed by the Apex
Court on 05.10.2015 and the Guidelines, 2016, as amended in 2017,
the impugned decision of the SLC does not suffer from lack of
jurisdiction and, therefore, cannot be said to be a decision taken
beyond its powers. Consequently, on this count, the Appellate
Authority has also rightly upheld the decision.
129. Challenge laid to the restrictions imposed by Annexure-
A to Notification dated 29.04.2008, as well as Annexure A-I notified
vide Notification dated 15.03.2025, on the ground that the same are
violative of the Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g)
of the Constitution, is also misconceived, because permission to use
unlimited quantity of timber would have adverse impact on the
forests of the area and would also impact the public at large,
including other license holders engaged in the same business of
manufacture of Katha. In order to ensure equal distribution of
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-68- 2026:HHC:19496
availability of work, without causing any adverse impact on forest
High Court of H.P.
resources, the restriction on use of timber by limiting it to 7500
quintals definitely has nexus with the object sought to be achieved
by the directions issued by the Supreme Court, as well as the
Guidelines, 2016, as amended in 2017, to ensure availability of
timber to all stakeholders and sustainable use of timber without
adversely affecting forests, while at the same time having due regard
to the Fundamental Right of the petitioners to carry on business. Not
only petitioners, but others, including private respondents, are also
having Fundament Right to run business. Therefore, the challenge
to the regulatory conditions contained in Annexure-A, now Annexure
A-I, is not sustainable and is liable to be rejected.
130. It has been rightly pointed out by the respondents that,
in case the decision under Agenda No.3 is treated not as a
recommendation, but as a final decision by the SLC, and
consequential action of the concerned authority is held to be lacking
independent application of mind, then the same principle would
equally apply to the decision under Agenda Item No.15.8, which was
decided in favour of the petitioners, inasmuch as, in both agenda
items, the SLC has recorded its decision, which was thereafter
accepted and implemented by the concerned authority. Though this
Court is of the considered opinion that the said decisions were
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-69- 2026:HHC:19496
approved by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Himachal
High Court of H.P.
Pradesh, in his capacity as Chairman of the Committee, but were
thereafter recommended for consideration of the Government in his
capacity as Principal Chief Conservator of Forests heading the
Department. However, if the impugned decision under Agenda No.3
was to be set aside on this ground alone, then the entire proceedings
of the meeting held on 04.07.2024 would also be liable to be
questioned and quashed, inasmuch as the SLC has recorded its
decision on each and every agenda item.
131. From the subsequent action taken by the Department, it
is apparent that, though recommendations of SLC has been referred
to as a “decision,” but the same did not automatically culminate into
statutory amendment or implementation, but was followed by
consultation, deliberation and governmental consideration. The
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests acted in dual capacities, i.e.
as Chairman of the SLC while approving the
decision/recommendation of the SLC on 29.07.2024 and as Head of
the Forest Department, while issuing office order date 30.07.2024 on
the representations of the petitioners as well as the private
respondent, and also on 31.07.2024, at the time of submitting
proposal for amendment in the regulatory conditions related to
traditional Katha Bhatties as well as Katha Bhatties using IBR
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-70- 2026:HHC:19496
Boilers. Therefore, plea of the petitioners on this count is also liable
High Court of H.P.
to be rejected.
132. As discussed supra, there is no conversion of category
of wood-based industry. The unit remained a Katha manufacturing
unit. The traditional Katha Bhatties have been permitted to be
mechanised or modernized by installation of IBR Boilers, and
therefore, there is no direction qua conversion of category of wood-
based industry. The category remains the same, only the equipment
used for manufacturing Katha have been permitted to be upgraded.
133. Permitting conversion of all traditional Katha Bhatties
into new Katha Bhatties using IBR Boilers does not amount repeal
of depots classified in the Rules, because the SLC has not abolished
the establishment of traditional Katha Bhatties unless a traditional
Katha Bhatti unit holder applies for registration of Katha Bhatties
using IBR Boilers by depositing Rs.1,000/- as registration fee and
Rs.1,00,000/- as processing fee. Such unit shall not be automatically
converted into new Katha Bhatties using IBR Boilers in absence of
applying for conversion/establishment of Katha Bhatti with IBR
Boilers, the same shall remain as Katha Bhatti. Therefore, it is also
a misconception that, in view of decision related to Agenda No.3 in
the meeting held on 04.07.2024, Katha Bhatties units or depots have
been abolished by the SLC.
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-71- 2026:HHC:19496
134. From the material on record, it is also apparent that,
High Court of H.P.
though the application of respondent No.7-Mast Mohammad was
specifically referred to in Agenda No.3, there were a large number of
applications received from traditional Katha Bhatti owners seeking
permission to shift to Katha Bhatties using IBR Boilers and some of
such persons had also filed CWP No.1942 of 2018, and therefore, in
view of the powers and functions of the SLC, as provided under
Clause 4 of the Guidelines, 2016, as amended in 2017, the SLC
acted well within its domain and jurisdiction in taking a decision to
permit all desirous traditional Katha Bhatti unit holders to establish
Katha Bhatties using IBR Boilers, subject to fresh registration and
the process to be undertaken by the Department upon submission
of applications by such unit holders.
135. The impugned decision is also justified on the ground
that it would not only decrease consumption of Khairwood for
yielding increased Katha, but continuation of traditional Katha
Bhatties would result in greater wastage of raw material and
ecological concerns, besides causing prejudice to private
respondents who intend to shift to Katha Bhatties using IBR Boilers,
which are comparatively more environment friendly. The petitioners,
who themselves are running Katha Bhatties using IBR Boilers,
therefore, have no locus to claim a right to restrain the private
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:37 :::CIS
-72- 2026:HHC:19496
respondents or the respondent-authorities from permitting such
High Court of H.P.
traditional Katha Bhatti units to shift to Katha Bhatties using IBR
Boilers in accordance with law.
136. In view of the above observations, this Court does not
find any ground to interfere with the decision dated 30.04.2025
passed by the Appellate Authority in the appeal preferred by the
petitioner.
137. It is also relevant to observe that, during pendency of the
appeal, the respondents were not inhibited from considering the
recommendations of the SLC and from taking consequential action
related thereto. Therefore, issuance of impugned Notification during
pendency of appeal does not suffer any illegality on this court.
138. As observed hereinabove, neither the decision/proposal
of the SLC nor Annexure A-I, notified vide Notification dated
15.03.2025, deletes the ‘sale depot’ incorporated in the Rules by way
of amendment in the year 2008. There is no abolition of traditional
Katha Bhatties and, in case any unit holder intends to continue with
a traditional Katha Bhatti or is otherwise permitted to run the same,
subject to all relevant provisions of law, including approval of the
SLC, the depot related to traditional Katha Bhatti will be available
with respect to the said traditional Katha Bhatti unit.
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:38 :::CIS
-73- 2026:HHC:19496
139. It is true that in recommendations and proposals
High Court of H.P.
submitted to the Government, justification seeking amendment, was
stated for compliance of the decision of SLC in case of Mast
Mohammad dated 30.04.2024. However, from the subsequent
exercise undertaken by the Government as evident from meetings
held on 07.10.2025, 15.10.2025 and communication dated
16.10.2025 as well as communication/deliberations held thereafter
in December and January, the amendment cannot be said to be
mechanical compliance of the decision of the SLC, but rather it is a
policy decision of the Government taken after due consideration of
the issue involved. Even otherwise, same principle would equally
apply to implementation of decision of SLC relating to Agenda
No.15.8, but in that the petitioners are is not finding any fault and
enjoying the benefit thereof, but with respect to issue related to
Agenda No.3 in the identical circumstances, petitioners are
advancing argument that entire exercise is illegal.
140. Under Section 3(3) of the Timber Act, 1968, it has been
provided that all Rules under this Section shall be so made after
previous publication in the official Gazette. Section 3(4) further
provides that all such Rules shall be laid before Legislative Assembly
as soon as may be after they are made. However, no adverse
consequences for non-adherence to the provisions of Section 3(3)
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:38 :::CIS
-74- 2026:HHC:19496
or Section 3(4) have been incorporated in the Act. It is settled law
High Court of H.P.
that where previous publication or laying down the Rules before the
Legislative Assembly is not followed by any adverse consequences,
including nullity of the Rules so framed, such provision has to be
considered ‘ directory’ . In case re-publication would have been
mandatory, there must have been a Clause providing the
consequences thereof. For absence of previous publication, Rules
framed or amended, shall not become illegal or nullity. Therefore, on
this count also, Notification dated 15.03.2025 cannot automatically
be rendered illegal or non est . It may only give opportunity to assail
such Notification on such ground, which would have raised in
objections. Such objections raised in present petition, in our view,
are of no worth and this failure in pre-publication of amendment is
not fatal in given facts and circumstances.
141. Though this Court is not finally adjudicating upon the
issue of pre-publication in absolute terms, however, there is
considerable force in the contention of the respondents that there is
no amendment to the Rule itself, which remains intact, and that it is
only the Annexure appended to the Rules which has been modified
in consonance with the spirit of the Act and the Rules. Since Section
3 empowers the respondent-State to frame Rules for regulating
establishment of sale depots, replacement/amendment of Annexure-
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:38 :::CIS
-75- 2026:HHC:19496
A by Annexure A-I vide Notification dated 15.03.2025 cannot, on this
High Court of H.P.
ground alone, be rendered illegal or a nullity.
142. Petitioners and the private respondents are in the same
business, i.e. manufacturing of Katha. The petitioners were originally
having traditional Katha Bhatties, which have been now mechanised
and they are having Katha Bhatties using IBR Boilers. Apparently,
petitioners as well as private respondents, are competitors with each
other, being in the same business. Petitioners are praying for
removing the cap of limit provided in regulations regarding using of
Khair wood upto 7500 quintals, which means they intend to use
unlimited Khair woods for manufacturing Katha and, at the same
time, they are opposing conversion of Katha Bhatties of private
respondents into Katha Bhatties using IBR Boilers. The intention of
the petitioners is clear that they are intending to capitalise the
business of manufacturing Katha by enhancing use Khair wood
unlimitedly. The SLC has to consider establishment for wood-based
industries on the basis of availability of wood in the State of Himachal
Pradesh with sustainable development. Sustainable development
also includes equal distribution of resources and availability of work
to all who intend to enter into or continue the business of
manufacturing Katha.
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:38 :::CIS
-76- 2026:HHC:19496
143. Concept of ‘Swaraj’ propounded by Bal Gangadhar
High Court of H.P.
Tilak , Gandhian concept of Swaraj and Self-Government and Deen
Dayal Upadhyay’s Ekatma Manavvad (Integral Humanism)
propagates equal distribution of resources to all and system to
ensure upliftment of every section of society by extending benefit to
the last person by providing work and opportunities to all.
144. The conduct of the petitioners, who are in the same
business, enjoying benefit in terms of the same regulations, is highly
depreciable. While claiming infringement of their right to carry on
business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, but they are
forgetting that the similar right is also available to private
respondents. Private respondents have also right to run their
business and to upgrade their machinery. The SLC has to take
decision by protecting the interest of all to ensure equal distribution
of resources and work for sustainable development of the society.
145. In view of above discussion, we do not find any merit in
these petitions. From the overall perusal of the petitions, it appears
that petitioners are trying to set personal scores with their
competitors and to refrain them from competing with them, they have
devised a method by filing appeal against decision taken in favour of
private respondents and thereafter present petitions, but with ulterior
motive. Therefore, petitions are not only liable to be dismissed, but
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:38 :::CIS
-77- 2026:HHC:19496
with exemplary cost. However, by taking lenient view, no cost is
High Court of H.P.
being imposed.
146. Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed in above
terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
(Vivek Singh Thakur)
Judge
(Sushil Kukreja)
Judge.
th
25 May, 2026
(Pardeep)
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 18:02:38 :::CIS