AJENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all the writ petitions a common question of law about the grant/renewal of licence for operating saw-mills having been raised, they are being decided simultaneously.

(2.) The petitioners seek a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 to consider the case of the petitioners for renewal of licence.

(3.) The contention of the petitioner is that the saw-mill was established in the year 1989 by his father who submitted licence fee with penalty from 1989 to 1997 (Annex- ure-1 to the writ petition). The petitioners' father had been running the saw-mill earlier than the year 1989 without any licence. According to the petitioners in the year 1996 some officers of the forest department informed him that licence is required for the running of saw-mill. When the petitioners applied for licence 'no objection certificate' from the District Magistrate. Aligarh was required to be furnished. According to the petitioners after filing of no objection certificate licence to run the saw-mill was given in the year 1996. The assertion of the petitioner is that the U.P. Establishment and Regulations of Saw Mills Rules, 1978 provide that if an application for grant of licence is not disposed of within 60 days from the date of receipt of the application the licence shall be deemed to have been granted. The petitioners have stated that the respondent no.3 having not disposed of the application of the petitioners' father within a period of 60 days the licence for running the saw-mill shall be deemed to have been granted. After the death of petitioners' father on 1-2-1997 they became the owners of the saw-mill and approached the respondent no.3 for the renewal of licence. The petitioners made representations on 24-11-03 and 31-9-2004 (Annexures-2 and 3 to writ petition) to the respondent no.3 in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Nand Lal Versus State of U.P. and others AIR 2002 Allahabad 141 (2002 All LJ 1255), but the respondents did not consider their representations. The contention of the petitioners is that the respondents have misinterpreted the order of the Apex Court in the case of T.N. Godawarman Thirumulkpad Versus Union of India AIR 1997 SC 1228 wherein the direction to close down the saw mills having no valid licence on 1-4-1997 was issued. The petitioners stated that the decision in the said case was reconsidered by the Apex Court in relation to the State of U.P. more particularly the question of renewal or grant of fresh licence for running the saw mills.