Case Summary: State of Himachal Pradesh vs Ganesh Wood Products (1995)
Citation: AIR 1996 SC 149 : AIR 1995 SC 149 : (1995) 6 JT 485 : (1995) 5 SCALE 303 : (1995) 6 SCC 363 : (1995) 3 SCR 477 Supp
Case No: Civil Appeals Nos. 8184-88, 8189, 8190-93 of 1995
Date of Decision: 11-09-1995
Appellant: State of Himachal Pradesh and Others
Respondent: Ganesh Wood Products and Others
Bench: Justice M.K. Mukherjee, Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy (Division Bench)
Final Decision: Appeals Allowed
[Judgment Source] https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=282616
Law Points Raised
1. Whether provisional approvals by IPARA (Industrial Projects Approval and Review Authority) confer any enforceable legal rights.
2. Environmental implications of indiscriminate cutting of khair trees and sustainability of raw material for katha production.
3. Role of public interest litigation and whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in administrative matters.
4. Applicability and interpretation of Articles 162 and 226 of the Constitution regarding state executive powers and judicial review.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court held that provisional approvals granted by IPARA do not create vested rights and are subject to final approval by the Government. The Governor’s decision to approve only three units was justified based on the principle of “first come, first served” and limited availability of raw material. The Court emphasized the importance of sustainable environmental management and judicial restraint in administrative policy matters.
Final Ruling
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and upheld the Governor’s decision to grant permission only to three units (Doon Katha, Orient Herbs, and Sagar Katha). The High Court’s judgment quashing the government’s refusal to allow other units was set aside.
Relevant Paragraph Numbers
Key references: Paragraphs 3–9 (background facts and IPARA approval process), Paragraphs 10–13 (High Court’s decision and writ petitions), Paragraphs 14–15 (arguments by parties), and final decision analysis.
Summary
This landmark judgment clarifies the distinction between provisional and final administrative approvals and reaffirms that judicial intervention should be limited in policy-based executive decisions. It also underscores the environmental concerns surrounding resource-dependent industries and validates government discretion in regulating industrial licenses based on ecological sustainability.
[Judgment Source] https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=282616