TARA CHAND Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, as divulged by Annexure P -1, is running a furniture house/joinery in Village Dhoggi, Post Office Chowai, Tehsil Ani, since the year 2005. Annexure P -3 discloses the fact of validity of Annexure P -1 having come to be extended up to 31.12.2015. The petitioner avers that respondent No. 4 has illegally commenced, running a furniture house in Chowai Bazar. He has omitted to obtain valid permission from the authorities concerned. The petitioner made several complaints and representations to the authorities concerned comprised in Annexures P -4 to P -11 and P -13 for taking action against respondent No. 4 against his illegal running a furniture shop. The petitioner heavily relies upon Annexure P -15 to canvass before this Court that with its contents displaying that his not having accorded valid permission, to, run the furniture house, hence, his running the furniture house, is, contrary to the provisions of law necessitating action against respondent No. 4, by respondents No. 1 to 3. Consequently, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, in the nature of mandamus, directing respondents No. 1 to 3 to take action against respondent No. 4 and seal the illegal furniture house being run by him at Chowai Bazaar in Tehsil Ani and also to seal his workshop at village Bowanda.

(2.) THE respondents contested the petition and filed a detailed reply. In short, the stand, advanced by the respondents, in their reply is that respondent No. 4 is not manufacturing furniture at his shop, rather, he is engaged in the selling of readymade steel and wooden furniture, for which no permission is required. The fact of respondent No. 4 not being engaged in the manufacturing of the furniture, rather, his selling the readymade steel and wooden furniture, has been detailed in the reply furnished by the respondents.

(3.) NO concerted efforts have been made on the part of the petitioner to lend any substantial sinew and legal vigor to the averments in the petition that the petitioner has either an illegal workshop at Bhowanda, as, contended, comprised in his appending along with the writ petition photographic evidence in proof thereof nor is there on record any complaint made by the petitioner to the authorities concerned delineating, articulating and forthrightly demonstrative, of, the petitioner having illicitly felled trees and used the converted timber there from, to, manufacture timber at his workshop at Bhowanda.