STATE OF TRIPURA Vs. MOHAMMAD SAYEFUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 2-9-97 of the learned District Judge, North Tripura,Kailasahar in Title Appeal No. 11 of 1996.

(2.) The facts briefly are that the respondent filed Title Suit No. 20 of 1994 against the appellants in the Court of Assistant District Judge, North Tripura, Kailasahar. The case of the respondent in the said suit was that he set up a saw mill under the name and style of "Srinathpur Saw Mill" at Srinathpur in Kailasahar in the district of North Tripura in the year 1984 with the loan of Rs. 25,000/- from the State Bank of India, Kailasahar Branch. The Industry Department of Government of Tripura initially registered the aforesaid saw mill of the respondent as a small scale industrial unit and sanctioned a subsidy of Rs. 8,437.25. The saw mill started functioning and had a decent income. In 1985, however, the Tripura Forest (Establishment and Regulations of Saw Mills and Other Wood-based Industries) Rules, (for short "the 1985 Rules") were made by the Government of Tripura under Section 51-A of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. Rule 3(2)(a) of the 1985 Rules provided that all persons carrying on business in saw mills and other units including factories immediately before the commencement of the Rules would obtain licence from the Authorised Officer and Rule 3(2)(b) further stipulated that such persons would apply in Form II within the period of 90 days from the date of commencement of the Rules and might carry on the said business or occupation until a licence was granted under the Rules. The respondent accordingly applied for licence in the prescribed format No. II and offered the requisite fees. But the Authorised Officer did not accept the fees and did not intimate the respondent the reasons for such non-acceptance and no licence was granted to the respondent. For such refusal on the part of the Forest Department to grant licence to the respondent for running the saw mill, the Industry Department did not renew the small scale Industrial unit registration certificate of the respondent and the Electricity Department discontinued the electricity supply to the saw mill premises of the respondent. On these facts the respondent filed the suit for a declaration that he was entitled to deposit the necessary licence fee and to have a licence to run the saw mill, and for a mandatory injunction directing the appellants to accept the licence fee and issue licence to the respondent. In the said suit, the respondent also claimed compensation and damages as detailed in Schedule 'A' to the plaint. The appellants contested the said suit by taking, inter alia, the plea in their written statement that under Rule 3(2)(b) of the 1985 Rules, the respondent was required to apply for licence within the period of 90 days from the date of commencement of the Rules, but the respondent applied for licence long beyond the said period of 90 days on 21-7-1986 and, as such, the application of the respondent was time-barred and deserved no consideration and for this reason the fee of Rs. 250/- deposited by the respondent for licence was not accepted by the Forest Authorities. The Trial Court after recording evidence accepted the said plea of the appellants in the written statement and dismissed the suit by the judgment and decree dated 27-9-96.

(3.) Aggrieved, the respondent filed Title Appeal No. 11/96 in the Court of District Judge, North Tripura, Kailasahar and after hearing the parties, the learned District Judge held that the requirement under Rule 3(2)(b) of the 1985 Rules that persons carrying on the business of saw mills would apply for licence in Form II within the period of 90 days from the date of commencement of the Rules was not mandatory but directory and that there was no justification for the Forest Department not to accept the fee of Rs. 250/- and issue a licence under the said Rules to the respondent and that the respondent's saw mill was entitled to be considered for grant of licence under the 1985 Rules and directed the Forest Department to consider and dispose of the pending application of the respondent within 60 days and to communicate the said decision to the respondent. The learned District Judge, however, refused to grant any compensation or damages in favour of the respondent and allowed the appeal to the extent indicated above by the impugned judgment and decree dated 2-9-97. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.