Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2910 (ALL)

Daya Ram v. State of U. P.

2014-09-18

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, DILIP GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT Dilip Gupta, J. The petitioner has impugned the correctness of an order dated 8 August 2014 passed by the Regional Director, Social Forestry, Forest Department, Basti allowing the complaint of the third and fourth respondents for the transfer of a licence in respect of a sawmill to their names as well as the name of the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner is that a licence was granted to him in 1994 and has been renewed thereafter until 2014 under the U.P. Establishment and Regulation of Sawmills Rules, 1978. The petitioner and the third and fourth respondents are brothers. The third and fourth respondents filed a complaint alleging that the licence originally stood in the name of their father, late Dhunmun Chaudhary, and that after his death, the licence should be transferred in the name of all the three sons. 3. Initially, it appears from the records that the licence was suspended by the second respondent on 21 October 2008. The order of suspension is stated to have been stayed by this Court in Writ Petition No.56177 of 2008 filed by the petitioner. The said writ petition is stated to have been finally allowed on 17 April 2014. Thereupon, the contesting private respondents filed a complaint on 21 May 2014 for the inclusion of their names in the licence. The second respondent called for a report from the Regional Forest Officer, Haraiya. The petitioner submitted a reply to the notice. The impugned order has been passed by the second respondent on 8 August 2014 allowing the complaint of the private respondents and directing that their names should also be included. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that there is absolutely no finding and reasoning in the impugned order. It has been submitted that the second respondent has merely stated the background of the dispute. 5. The submission which has been urged is that there is no application of mind to the objections of the petitioner or to his contentions that the licence originally stood in the name of the petitioner; the third respondent was employed in the railways; and that the licence exclusively stood in the name of the petitioner at all material times during and after the life time of his father. 6. 6. Notice was directed to be issued by this Court to the third and fourth respondents on 28 September 2014 and private service was also permitted in addition. The third respondent has, accordingly, entered his appearance. An affidavit of service has also been filed regarding respondent no.4. 7. Ex-facie a reading of the impugned order of the second respondent would indicate that there is no application of mind and no reasons have been stated for allowing the complaint of the third and fourth respondents for the transfer of the licence to their names. The objections of the petitioner have not been dealt with. The second respondent has not applied his mind to the issue as to who was the original holder of the licence. The contention of the petitioner that the licence at all material times stood in his name and that the father had no connection therewith has not been considered. 8. In our view, these submission would merit a proper consideration and due application of mind by the second respondent. In order to facilitate this, we set aside the impugned order dated 8 August 2014 and restore the proceedings back to the second respondent clarifying that all the rights and contentions of the parties on the merits of their respective cases are kept open. The second respondent shall hear both the petitioner as well as the third and fourth respondents before taking any final decision. It would be open to the petitioner and the third and fourth respondents to file all the relevant documentary material together with a fresh statement of their respective cases within a period of one month from today. The second respondent shall also examine the original records pertaining to the licence, including who had originally submitted the application for the issuance of the licence when it was granted in 1987 and 1994. The second respondent shall thereupon pass a reasoned order after furnishing an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the contesting parties and after calling for such further reports as are necessary, preferably within a period of three months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed with the aforesaid directions.