BALESHWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer of the petitioners, who are owners of Saw Mills of District, Basti, is to quash Rule 3 of the U.P. Establishment and Regulation of Saw Mills Rule, 1978 and to restrain the respondents from interfering with running of their Saw Mills.

(2.) Smt. Anita Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the impugned Rule is liable to be quashed inasmuch as it imposes unreasonable restriction on the right of the petitioners, who are having a three horse power operating Saw Mills to carry on their trade/business as contemplated under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India in asking the petitioners for registration of their saw mills, that in view of Rule 12 of the Rules since the petitioners were engaged in ordinary operation in the domestic carpentry restriction cannot be imposed and accordingly the petitioners moved respondent No. 2, Prabhagiya Nideshak Samagik Vaniki Van Prabhag, Basti but he observed that he will see that operation of the Saw Mills of the petitioners is stopped by all means.

(3.) Sri P. K. Bisaria, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, contended that the submissions made by Smt. Tripathi, are devoid of substance. What has happened is apparent from the facts stated in the counter affidavit sworn by the Forest Officer, Basti, to which no Rejoinder has been filed by the petitioners. Accordingly, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.