Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1039 (JHR)

Mahabir Timber Works v. State of Jharkhand

2010-11-26

DHIRUBHAI NARANBHAI PATEL, SUSHIL HARKAULI

body2010
ORDER 1. We have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant. 2. This L.P.A. challenges the order dated 23.3.2007, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1267 of 2005 whereby the writ petition was dismissed. 3. The relevant facts are that the Petitioner's license of Saw Mill has been cancelled under the provision of Section 7 of the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Act, 1990 by the order of the Licensing Authority dated 8.3.2003. The order of the Licensing Authority has been upheld in appeal by the order of the Appellate Authority dated 14.6.2004 (Annexure-10 of the appeal). 4. The license has been cancelled on the ground that the Petitioner had violated the conditions of license as 18 logs of Semal wood was found in his premises which could not be satisfactorily accounted for by the Petitioner. The defence of the Petitioner that this wood was brought by one Anand Mahto failed because of denial by Anand Mahto. It also failed because the Licensing Authority and the Appellate Authority found, that the transit of this wood was not supported by any transit papers. 5. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, refused to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the licensing authority and upheld by the appellate authority. 6. As pointed out above, the finding is a pure finding of fact based upon relevant material and circumstances and therefore, has rightly not been interfered with by the learned Single Judge. 7. In this appeal, the learned Counsel for the Appellant, while accepting the findings of fact, has argued that this was the first offence and was, therefore, liable to be compounded under Section 19 of the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Act, 1990. 8. The argument is misconceived. In order to be compoundable under Section 19 not only it must be the first offence but must also be covered under any one of the following three ingredients, namely: (i) Non-submission of return under Section 9, or (ii) Non-maintenance of account of wood under Section 10, or (iii) Sawing of wood unlawfully obtained which is of less than half a cubic metre in volume. 9. The wood found at the Saw Mill of the Petitioner-Appellant was 400 cubic feet which means it was much more than half a cubic (sic) in volume. Accordingly, the Petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of Section 19. 10. 9. The wood found at the Saw Mill of the Petitioner-Appellant was 400 cubic feet which means it was much more than half a cubic (sic) in volume. Accordingly, the Petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of Section 19. 10. Further, this argument was not raised before the learned Licensing Authority or the Appellate Authority or before the learned Single Judge and therefore, this compoundability is not permissible to be raised for the first time in this L.P.A. 11. Under the facts and. circumstances of the case, we decline to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, this L.P.A. is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.