Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1026 (GAU)

Safia Khanam Barbhuiya v. Union of India & 5 Ors.

2015-08-13

MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2015
1. Heard Mr. N.I. Khan, learned counsel representing the petitioner. None appears to represent Union of India nor the Forest Department, Govt. of Assam. Neither any affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the aforesaid two authorities so as to rebut any statement made in the writ petition. 2. The petitioner had responded to the Notice dated 04.03.2000 issued by the Chief Conservator of Forest (T), Assam whereby applications were invited for grant of licence in respect of Wood Based Industries in terms of the provisions under The Assam Wood Based Industries (Establishment and Regulation) Rules, 2000. Although the said Notice pertained to wood based industries like Saw Mills, Veneer Mills, Plywood Mills, Match/Match Splint, Particle Board, Hard Board, Katha Manufacturing Units, Agarwood Oil Extracting Unit or any other industry which may use wood as raw-material, the present proceedings is confined to the grant/non-grant of Agarwood Oil Extracting Unit. 3. On 31.07.2000 the petitioner applied in proper format for grant of licence in respect of setting-up of an Agarwood Oil Industry under the brand name of “Holy Cent Agar Oil”. From the letter of the Divisional Forest Officer, Cachar Division dated 03.04.2001 (Annexure-3), which is virtually a report submitted to the Chief Conservator of Forest (T), Assam, it is indicated that the infrastructure required for the purpose of setting-up the industry has been completed by the petitioner, save and except the grant of licence. It is also indicated that if the proposed industry is managed well, it will go to provide self-dependency to the unemployed educated applicant and at the same time the government will also be benefited by sizeable revenue. 4. Despite the fact that the petitioner had made application on 31.07.2000 pursuant to the Notice dated 04.03.2000 as well as having a favourable report of the Divisional Forest Officer, Cachar Division, the matter with regard to grant of licence was unnecessarily prolonged. In this respect, the petitioner had the occasion to institute WP(C) 480/2011 and by order of 31.01.2011 this Court was pleased to issue a notice returnable by 4 weeks. The petitioner contends that the said WP(C) 480/2011 was withdrawn from file on 02.09.2013 and as per the statements made at paragraph 9 of the writ petition, the same was necessitated by the fact that the respondents had given oral assurance to the petitioner towards grant of licence. The petitioner contends that the said WP(C) 480/2011 was withdrawn from file on 02.09.2013 and as per the statements made at paragraph 9 of the writ petition, the same was necessitated by the fact that the respondents had given oral assurance to the petitioner towards grant of licence. However, the petitioner was again constrained to institute the present proceedings as nothing materialised even after withdrawal of the writ petition i.e. WP(C) 480/2011. The petitioner is also aggrieved of the fact that pursuant to withdrawal of the writ petition two representations had been made, both dated 10.10.2013, addressed to the Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Forest, New Delhi and to the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Department of Forest & Environment. According to the petitioner the said representations have remained unattended to until this date. 5. On the issue with regard to grant or refusal to grant/renewal of licence, the statutory provision can be had at sub Rule (7) of Rule 4 of the Assam Wood Based Industries (Establishment and Regulation) Rules, 2000. The counsel for the petitioner by referring to the aforesaid provision submits that it is obligatory on the part of the Licensing Committee to decide upon the issue of grant or refusal to grant licence within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of an application. The said provision also makes it clear that in case the Licensing Committee refuses to grant a licence, it has to record reasons and such reasons has to be communicated to the person in writing. 6. Having regard to the aforesaid provision under sub Rule (7) of Rule 4 of the aforesaid Rules vis-a-vis the basic facts of this case, it appears that the petitioner had made the application way back on 31.07.2000 for grant of licence. Whether the Licensing Committee have initiated action towards grant of licence or have refused to grant licence, no such information has been brought to the notice of this Court. Also, in the absence of receipt of any communication by the petitioner from the Licensing Committee and having regard to the provision under the aforesaid rules, it also cannot be presumed that the application of the petitioner has been refused. Also, in the absence of receipt of any communication by the petitioner from the Licensing Committee and having regard to the provision under the aforesaid rules, it also cannot be presumed that the application of the petitioner has been refused. The end result is that the Licensing Committee is statutorily obliged to discharge its functions under sub Rule (7) of Rule 4 of the aforesaid Rules and cannot shy away from it. 7. In view of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondents, particularly respondent Nos. 3 & 4 to dispose of the application of the petitioner submitted on 31.07.2000 by following the provisions under sub Rule (7) of Rule 4 of the Assam Wood Based Industries (Establishment and Regulation) Rules, 2000, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. In the absence of any counsels representing the Union of India as well as the Forest Department, Govt. of Assam, today, the petitioner is permitted to produce a copy of this order before the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 for their doing the needful in terms of the directions above. 9. Resultantly, writ petition stands disposed of to the extent indicated above.