Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1534 (ALL)

DIWAKAR VISHWAKARMA v. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER

2002-10-23

G.K.GUPTA, S.P.SRIVASTAVA

body2002
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents, who has put in appearance on advance notice. 2. The petitioner had moved an application praying for the grant of a licence to run his saw mill using three horse power motor. The aforesaid application was rejected by the Prabhagiya Vanadhikari, Van Prabhag, Ambedkar Nagar vide his order dated 5-9-2002. A perusal of the aforesaid order indicates that the Licensing Authority was of the view that it was not permissible to grant any licence, as prayed, in view of the directions issued by Honble the Apex Court. 3. The petitioner feeling aggrieved has approached this Court by means of the present writ petition, seeking redress praying for the quashing of the aforesaid order. He has also prayed for a direction, requiring the respondent to grant the licence to the petitioner for running saw mill by using 3. H. P. Motor. 4. Learned Standing Counsel has urged that Honble the Supreme Court in its decision in the case of T. N. Gadavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India and others, AIR 1997 SC 1233 , had issued a direction to the following effect: "all unlicensed saw mills, veneer and plywood industries in the State of Maharashtra and the State of Uttar Pradesh are to be closed forthwith and the State Government would not remove or relax the condition for grant of permission licence for the opening of any such saw mill, veneer and plywood industry and it shall also not grant any fresh permission licence for this purpose. The Chief Secretary of the State will ensure strict compliance of this direction and file a compliance report within two weeks. " 5. Subsequently, however, the State Government had amended the Rules, permitting the running of a specified category of saw mills without any licence. The Rule which so provided for deemed licences had come up for consideration before Honble the Supreme Court in the case of T. N. Gadavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India and others, 2002 (4) SCALE page 419. In its aforesaid decision the Apex Court had quashed the said amendment and had observed that as a result of the order passed each and every saw mill running in the State of Uttar Pradesh would require a licence whether saw mill in running with the aid of power of otherwise. 6. In its aforesaid decision the Apex Court had quashed the said amendment and had observed that as a result of the order passed each and every saw mill running in the State of Uttar Pradesh would require a licence whether saw mill in running with the aid of power of otherwise. 6. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel is that taking into consideration the implications arising under the observations made by Honble the apex Court and direction issued by it in its aforesaid two decisions there can be no escape from the conclusion that the respondent authorities stand restrained from issuing any fresh licence and the ground disclosed in the impugned order for rejecting the application is justified. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has however, urged that Honble apex Court in its later decision has clearly indicated that each and every saw mill running in the State of Uttar Pradesh would require a licence. From the aforesaid observations learned Counsel for the petitioner has tried to draw an inference that the running of saw mills of the category of the saw mill which was being run by the petitioner was permissible subject to grant of licence and therefore, the view of the respondent authority is not correct. 7. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions. 8. From the perusal of the directions issued by the apex Court in its decision in the case of T. N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India and others, AIR 1997 SC 1233 , it is apparent that the Chief Secretary of the State of Uttar Pradesh was directed to ensure the strict compliance of the directions to the effect that all unlicensed saw mills veneer and the plywood industries in the State of Uttar Pradesh were closed forthwith. The State Government was not to renew or relax the conditions for grant of permission licence for the opening of any such saw mill, veneer and plywood industries and it was also not to grant any fresh permission licence for this purpose. 9. The rules known as the U. P. Establishment and Regulation of Saw-Mills Rules, 1978 contemplate granting of fresh licence for the running of the saw mills and continuance of existing saw mills on the grant of renewal of the licence. 9. The rules known as the U. P. Establishment and Regulation of Saw-Mills Rules, 1978 contemplate granting of fresh licence for the running of the saw mills and continuance of existing saw mills on the grant of renewal of the licence. The petitioners case on his own showing was for the grant of fresh licence for running saw mill which was newly established subsequent to the directions issued by Honble the apex Court. In the face of the direction prohibiting the grant of a fresh licence, as indicated here in above, no exception can be taken to the ground on the basis whereof the application of the petitioner for grant of licence to run a newly established saw mill has been rejected. 10. No justifiable ground has been made out for any interference by this Court in the impugned order while exercising the extra-ordinary jurisdiction envisaged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. Writ Petition in the above circumstances fails and is dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed. .