Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1548 (JHR)

Gopal Prasad Choudhary v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-08-29

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2017
JUDGMENT Rajesh Shankar, J. – Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 28.04.2003 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Ranchi East Forest Division (respondent No. 5) whereby the licence of M/s Jay Bharat Saw Mill for carrying business of timber was cancelled. 3. The factual background of the case is that a partnership deed was executed in the month of April 1995 among three partners namely Kaleshwar Prasad Choudhary, Gopal Prasad Choudhary and Bisheshwar Choudhary (own brothers) in the name and style of M/s Jay Bharat Saw Mill for carrying business of timber. Initially, Gopal Prasad Choudhary (the petitioner herein) had active role in completion of formalities for taking licence for running the saw mill which was granted in favour of the said firm in the year 1996. The said licence was renewed up to 2000. Subsequently, an application for renewal of licence was filed by Kaleshwar Prasad Choudhary upon which, a notice was issued by the licencing authority-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, East Forest Division, Ranchi vide letter no. 1003 dated 04.04.2002 informing the petitioner that the monthly return is not being filed on behalf of the Establishment after February, 2000 as well as the said Establishment is continuously closed. On these two grounds, the petitioner was issued the notice as to why the Saw Mill licence of M/s Jay Bharat Saw Mill should not be cancelled as per Section 7 (5)(a) of the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Act, 1990 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") and subsequently the same was cancelled on the ground that previously the steps for renewal of licence was taken by Gopal Prasad Choudhary but later on such application was presented by one Kaleshwar Prasad Choudhary and Satish Kumar Choudhary. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to ill health of the petitioner (Gopal Prasad Choudhary), it was decided that the application for renewal would be filed by other partner of the firm for smooth functioning of the business and therefore the application for renewal was filed by one of the partners of the firm namely Kaleshwar Prasad Choudhary. It is further submitted that the licence was not granted in favour of any individual rather the same was issued in favour of the firm which was constituted by three partners in which Kaleshwar Prasad Choudhary is also one of the partners. It is further submitted that the licence was not granted in favour of any individual rather the same was issued in favour of the firm which was constituted by three partners in which Kaleshwar Prasad Choudhary is also one of the partners. 5. At the very outset, learned counsel for the State contended that as per Section 12 of the Act, there is a provision of appeal against the order of refusal of a licencing officer to grant or renew a licence or by the order of suspension or revocation of a licence. However, there is period of limitation provided under the said Act. 6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the State that in view of Rule 9 of Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Rules, 1993 (in short to be referred as "the Rules, 1993), the Conservator of Forest is the appellate authority. On this, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that since the present writ petition has remained pending before this Court for a considerable period, the appellate authority may be directed to consider the delay caused in preferring the appeal leniently. 7. Considering the fact that the petitioner has the alternative remedy in view of the Section 12 of the Act, he is at liberty to file an appeal before the appellate authority as prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules, 1993, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. If the said appeal is filed along with a limitation petition for condoning the delay, the same shall be considered by the appellate authority liberally, particularly considering the fact that the present writ petition remained pending before this Court for a considerable period. 8. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merit of the case. 9. The pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.