SAKEL KHAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 11.12.99 passed by respondent No. 3. the Conservator of Forest, Ranchi, Territorial Circle, Ranchi and also the orders as contained in letters dated 7.7.97 and 26.11.97 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, East Division, Ranchi whereby the application for grant of licence for running Saw mill at Ranchi has been rejected.

(2.) PETITIONER 's case is that he is the owner of M/s B.K. Tinber, Namkum, Ranchi. In 1996 he had applied for grant of Saw Mill licence. Along with the application the petitioner had deposited Rs. 1000/ - by way of bank draft and the petitioner, thereafter, carried on his business. As no objection was raised within a period of 30 days and even thereafter, on the basis of deemed licence the petitioner again deposited Rs. 1,000/ - at theend of the year for the renewal of the licence. However, by letter dated 7.7.97 an explanation was called for from the petitioner and in response thereto he submitted his reply. The contention of the petitioner is that since the application of the petitioner for grant of licence was not disposed of, it was deemed that the licence has been granted in view of the provisions of Section 5 of the Bihar Saw Mill (Regulation) Act. However, all on a sudden respondent No. 2 issued a letter dated 7.7.97 communicating the petitioner that his application for grant of licence has been rejected. The petitioner approached respondent No. 2 and filed all relevant documents before him as required for grant of licence and requested for renewal of Saw Mill Licence. Respondent No. 2, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, rejected the application of the petitioner for grant of licence or renewal thereof. The petitioner then approached respondent No. 3 by preferring an appeal which was also ultimately rejected.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY the petitioner applied for grant of licence of Saw Mill. It is admitted in para 9 of the counter affidavit that if such application is not disposed of within 30 days then such Saw Mill enjoys the legal status of being deemed licensee within the meaning of Section 5(b) of the said Bihar Saw Mill (Regulation) Act. 1990. In the next year i.e. in 1997 the petitioner admittedly deposit Rs. 1000/ - for renewal of the deemed licence. The Divisional Forest Officer, however, by his order dated 18.11.97, rejected the application for grant of renewal of the licence. The petitioner preferred appeal before respondent No. 3 which was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was caught dealing in illegal timber and he, after changing his name, applies for new licence. It was also stated in the appellate order that the petitioner was again caught by the licensing officer himself doing illegal business and did not show his stock register. The order passed by the appellate authority dated 11.12.99 is reproduced herein below : - -