Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 799 (HP)

Ajay Kumar Sood v. State of H. P.

2014-06-26

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2014
JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, Judge. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Katha in a Bhatti. His Bhatti is named and styled as M/s Renuka Katha Udyog, Khala-Kyar, Renukaji, H.P. For the purpose of manufacturing of katha in the kiln aforesaid, the petitioner applied for and obtained loan from Khadi Village and Industries Commission, besides, necessary permissions from the Industries Department, as well, as, from the Environment Protection and Pollution Control Board, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. have been obtained by the petitioner. However, his application for renewal of permission for running katha Bhatti, as preferred by the petitioner before the competent authority, having come to be rejected, by, the Divisional Forest Officer, Renukaji Forest Division, respondent No.5 under Annexure P-4. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal of permission on the part of the authority, who rendered the communication to the petitioner comprised in Annexure P-4, apprising him of the refusal by the competent authority to accord renewal of permission previously granted, to, the petitioner for manufacturing of katha in his unit, named and styled as M/s Renuka Katha Udyog, Khala-Kyar, Renukaji, H.P. The reasons as comprised, in, the communication, is, an intimation to the petitioner of refusal of permission by the competent authority to run his Katha Bhatti, on the score of his having omitted to obtain permission after 9.1.2007. Therefore, the omission of the petitioner to obtain and apply for renewal of the permission previously to the competent authority for more than 7 years, constrained the competent authority, to, accord the permission to the petitioner for manufacturing of katha in his unit named and stayed M/s Renuka Katha Udyog, Khala-Kyar, Renukaji, H.P. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said refusal of the permission by the competent authority. 3. The respondents, in their reply furnished to the writ petition, concerted to defend their act in refusing to accord permission to the petitioner by relying upon Annexures R-VIA & R-VIB. A perusal thereof brings, to, surface the fact of the Government of Himachal Pradesh, having frozen a number of katha Bhattis, using IBR boilers up to 40-39 respectively. A further revelation in the Annexure, aforesaid, is of those districts/divisions in Himachal Pradesh, where the operation of Katha Bhattis has been permitted to be carried out, are divisions/districts other than District Sirmour. A further revelation in the Annexure, aforesaid, is of those districts/divisions in Himachal Pradesh, where the operation of Katha Bhattis has been permitted to be carried out, are divisions/districts other than District Sirmour. However, amongst such divisions/districts, the name of District Sirmaur, where the proposed unit of the petitioner is contemplated to be set up, does not occur. Consequently, with their being a prohibition or interdiction in Annexure P-9, against setting up of katha Bhatti in District Sirmour, where the petitioner, proposes to set up a Bhatti, may at the stage be construed to be a, prima-facie, tenable reason for refusal of renewal of permission on the part of the respondents to the petitioner for setting up in his katha Bhatti, at District Sirmour. However, in view of the fact that there is dire variance in the stand reflected, in, the reply of the respondents, in refusing permission to the petitioner, for, manufacturing of katha in his katha Bhatti at Sirmour and in Annexure P-4, in as much, as, the later in variance to the stand reflected, in, the reply of the respondents, brings to the fore the fact, of, omission on the part of the petitioner, to, obtain renewal after 2007, to have weighed with the competent authority to accord renewal of the permission to the petitioner for running his katha Bhatti at Sirmour. Consequently, when the factum of Annexures R-VIA & VIB, did not weigh with the competent authority in refusing, to, accord permission to the petitioner for manufacturing katha in his katha Bhatti, at, Sirmour, which, rather, has been projected in the reply of the respondents to be the preponderant reason for refusal, it appears, hence, that, for, want of advertence of allusion by the competent authority in Annexure P-4 and Annexures R-VIA and R-VIB, as relied upon by the respondents, in their reply, vitiates Annexure P-4 with its being not only comprising an uninformed reason but also it suffering from non-application of mind. However, vires of Annexures R-VIA & R-VIB has remained un-challenged. 4. As a sequel, this Court of the view that Annexure P-4, hence, being not in consonance with the Annexure R-VIA & R-VIB, is set aside. However, it is directed that the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner afresh for grant of permission to him for running his Katha Bhatti at District Sirmour wholly in accordance with law. 5. As a sequel, this Court of the view that Annexure P-4, hence, being not in consonance with the Annexure R-VIA & R-VIB, is set aside. However, it is directed that the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner afresh for grant of permission to him for running his Katha Bhatti at District Sirmour wholly in accordance with law. 5. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also, the pending application(s), if any.