livelawpk.com - Factual Disputes, such as Claims of Compliance, could not --

Factual Disputes, such as Claims of Compliance, could not be adjudicated in Writ Jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution --- Lahore High Court dismissed the Petition and upheld Ban on Sawmills near Forest

1 month
64

Islamabad, 19-11-2024: The Lahore High Court has dismissed a Writ Petition filed by Muhammad Arshad and 28 others challenging notices issued under the Forest Act, 1927 (Amended 2010). The petitioners contested the prohibition on establishing sawmills, firewood depots, and furniture shops within a 5-mile radius of forests, as mandated by the Forest Act and Forest Rules, 2013.

The petitioners claimed they had complied with regulatory requirements established in 2013, which included registering their businesses with the Forest Department. However, the Court found no evidence of renewed registrations or maintenance of required operational records, as mandated under Section 26(1)(Q) of the Forest Act and the Establishment of Sawpits, Sawmill, Charcoal Kiln, Timber or Firewood Depot Rules, 2013. Mr. Justice Ahmad Nadeem Arshad upheld the legality of the notices, emphasizing the importance of environmental conservation over unregulated industrial operations.

The Court noted that factual disputes, such as claims of compliance, could not be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. It reaffirmed that the Forest Department acted lawfully in issuing the impugned notices to ensure compliance with forest conservation laws.

The judgment highlighted the critical role of forests as ecological assets in combating climate change, preserving biodiversity, and improving environmental quality. Mr. Justice Ahmad Nadeem Arshad underscored the environmental rationale behind relocating sawmills, stating, “Forests are the lungs of the Earth, and their protection is essential in the fight against global warming.”

The Court’s decision reinforces the state’s authority to regulate industrial activities near forests to prevent deforestation and promote sustainable practices. The judgment is expected to deter unauthorized industrial operations within ecologically sensitive areas and ensure stricter compliance with environmental laws.

The case was brought under Section 26(1)(Q) of the Forest Act, 1927, which prohibits establishing or operating sawmills within a 5-mile radius of reserved forests. Violators face penalties, including imprisonment of up to six months or fines. The Court also referenced the Forest Rules, 2013, which require mandatory registration and record-keeping for sawmill operations.

The Court dismissed the petition, concluding that the petitioners failed to provide evidence of compliance and could not substantiate their claims. The decision serves as a significant precedent for the enforcement of forest conservation laws and underscores the judiciary’s commitment to environmental protection.