SLC has the jurisdiction to recommend conversion of wood-based industries for sustainable resource use and technical upgradation.

The petitioners, owners of mechanized Katha (extract of Acacia catechu) units using IBR boilers, challenged the 15th meeting of the State Level Committee (SLC) dated 04.07.2024

The SLC had decided to allow traditional Katha Bhatties (handy-based) to convert into mechanized IBR Boiler units and enhanced the processing capacity for such units from 5,435 to 7,500 quintals annually

The State subsequently issued a notification on 15.03.2025 amending Annexure-A of the Himachal Pradesh Forest (Sale of Timber) Rules, 1969, to formalize these changes

The petitioners argued that the SLC lacked the jurisdiction to "convert" industry categories and that the notification was issued without the mandatory pre-publication required under Section 3 of the Timber Act, 1968

Himachal Pradesh (Sale of Timber) Act, 1968, specifically Section 3 regarding the power to make rules

Wood-Based Industries (Establishment and Regulation) Guidelines, 2016 (as amended in 2017), which authorize the SLC to assess timber availability and approve fresh licenses or capacity enhancements

T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (2016) 13 SCC 612 (2), establishing the SLC’s authority over wood-based industries

Regarding administrative procedure, the Court held that statutory requirements for "previous publication" are directory rather than mandatory if no adverse consequences for non-compliance are specified in the parent Act

The Court reasoned that "conversion" was effectively an "addition of new machinery" or a "fresh license" for enhanced capacity, both of which fall squarely within the SLC’s mandate under Para 130.3 of the Godavarman judgment and Clause 4 of the 2016 Guidelines

The Court found that traditional Bhatties were inefficient and ecologically harmful compared to IBR Boilers; thus, the SLC’s decision promoted "sustainable use of timber"

Regarding procedural lapses, the Court determined that since the Timber Act does not prescribe nullity as a consequence for failing to pre-publish draft rules, the requirement in Section 3(3) is directory

Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioners had already availed themselves of the benefits of the SLC’s decision (capacity enhancement) and were now estopped from challenging the same meeting's outcomes regarding their competitors

Failure of pre-publication did not render the 2025 Notification void as the provision is directory

The processing cap of 7,500 quintals is a "reasonable restriction" under Article 19(6) to ensure sustainable development and equal resource distribution

The High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the SLC acted within its jurisdiction and that the State’s notification was a valid exercise of policy; all interim orders were vacated