Ghulam Shabir & another (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent)

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Constitution PeHtion No.D-2106 of 2024 (Ghulam Shabbir €t others Vs p.O Sindh B others) Constitution Petition No, D-2322 of 2024 Shahmeer Ali Vs P,O Sindh €t others DATE OFHEARING oRDER WITH SIGNATURE OFJUDGE

Before;

Muhammad Saleem Jessar J;

Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, J;

For hearing of main case

Date of he and order 7242-2025.

Mr. Illahi Bux Jarrali advocate for the petitioners.

M-r._Shaharyar Imdad Awa4 Assistanl Advocate General Sindh along with Arif Ali Jagirani Sub-Divisional Forest Officer Naushahro Feroze.

Adnsn-ul-Karim Memon,.,f. The petitioners, claiming to possess valid sawmill licenses that are renewed annually (as per A,nexure A), request this Court to compel the Respondents to allow them to operate their sawmills in their respective area, which has been restricted under the garb of order passed by this court.

2.These petitions arise in the context of previous litigation (Constitution Petition D-1688 of 2021, filed by petitioner Hubdar Ali Ma ah) conceming forest encroachment and the Supreme Court's subsequent order on the subject issue. On october 1,2024, this court directed Deputy commissioners of several districts to prevent sawmill operations within 10 kilometers of forest borurdaries and to relocate existing sawmills beyond that limit.

3.Leamed corursel for the petitioners argued that Respondent No. 4, instead of targeting illegal sawmills, unjustly issuecr crosure notices to petitioner No. r and an unnecessary license renewal notice to petitioner No. 2 (whose license remains valid until June 30, 2025, andagainst dhom no compraints exist with any respondents. He added that Respondent No. 4 then misused this court,s october l, ?124, order to forcibly and unlawfully close the petitioners, sawmills (Annexure B). Per learned conrmer the petitioners have consistently operated their busrnesses lawhrlly, complying with all rules ancl regulations and regularly \\g'enewing their licenses. IJe emphasize that Respondent No. 4's actions have

intinged upon the Petitioners' legal and fundamental constitutional rights. He prayed for allowing the petition,

4.The respondents filed a report and detailed comments and submitted that that the petitioners failed to comply with the conditions and illegally established sawmills in the prohibited zone and requested the petition's dismissal as the same falls within the ratio of the order passed by this court in Hubdar Ali's case supra.

5.We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance and order passed by this court.

6.ln Hubdar Ali Mallah's case, restrictions on sawmill operations near protected forests were maintained. The petitioners argued a shutdown notice violated their fundamental rights of earning their bread and butter. However, citing established precedents, this court has already determined that the restrictions, including the 10km buffer zone, were/are reasonable and served the public interesl of environmental conservation, which is in line with the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Qazi Athar Ali's case. This court reasoned that the restrictions were/are not arbitrary, as their purpose was to prevent deforestation, This key order established the principle that environmental protection can take precedence over individual business rights, setting a precedent for balancing development with sustainability.

7.Primarily, sawmills proprietors are required to register their businesses with the Forest Department and maintain specific records. While the petitioners claim to have met all requirements, they have not provided any evidence of maintaining the necessary records. Furthermore, they have failed to demonstrate that their businesses are not operating within the prohibited lO-mile radius of the forest. Without this supporting documentation, the petitioners' challenge to the notices is unsubstantiated, even if their businesses do not falls withio the prohibition this factum rcquires evidence and it is for the respondents department to look into to the that aspect and if their businesses are genuine do not falls within the prohibitory area they cannot be disturbed, as the petitioners assert they operate their businesses in compliance with all regulations, while the respondent department denies this. This Court, in its writ jurisdiction, cannot summarily resolve such a factual dispute on the subject issue. Questions involving factual controversies cannot be decided under Article 199 of the Constitution.

8.Relocating sawmills and related operatiolts away from forests serves primarily to protect natural ecosystems. Proximity to forests often leads to overexploitation, deforestation, and biodiversity loss. Relocation encourages \esponsible sourcing and promotes forest regeneration and conservation.

Additionally, industrial activities like sawmilling can generate significant noise, dust, and waste pollution, posing a risk to nearby forest environments, air quality, and water sources.

9.Ihe relocation of sawmills, firewood storage, and furniture showrooms away from forests is driven by a range of environmental, economic, and social considerations. This rirove not only safeguards delicate ecosystems and encourages sustainable resource use but also contributes to cleaner urban areas and better cornrnunity relations. As the worrd faces chalenges like climate change and biodiversity loss, such strategies are crucial for a sustainable future that balances industrial needs with ecorogical preservation. prioritizing forest and community health paves the way for a more harmonious relationship between industry and nature.

10.In this era of global warming, robust forest protection is crucial. Often called the "lungs of the Earth," forests play a vital role in mitigating climate change and global warming. Through interconnected processes like carbon sequestration and biodiversity preservation, forests are essential for building a sustainable future.

11.In view ofthe foregoing, the respondents were justified in issuing notices to the concemed to relocate their sawmills, etc., outside the l0 km radius of the forest boundary. The petitio,ers' counsel has failed to demonstrate sufficient grourds for intervention by trris court, which is subject to operation of their business outside the 10 KM radius ofthe Forest boundary and if outside they are free to operate thei' businesses in accordance with law. Therefore, these petitions are disposed of in the above terrns.

Office is directud to plau a signed copy of this order in the captioned connected mstters.