MADAN LAL GUPTA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) No one appears for the respondents. The only ground on which the learned Single Judge refused to interfere was that the license for the saw mill could not be renewed in the absence of the prior approval of the Central Government. In coming to this conclusion, the learned single Judge was influenced by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of T. N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India, reported in (1997) 2 SCC 267.

(2.) Since the period of the licence granted in favour of the appellant-writ petitioner for running a saw mill under the Bihar Saw Mill (Regulation) Act, 1990 had expired/was to expire on 17-1-95 and the petitioner-appellant had applied for the renewal of the licence, the respondents vide order dated 28-9-96 refused to grant such renewal, leaving the petitioner to file writ petition in this Court (being C.W.J.C. No. 297/97(R)) which was dismissed by the learned single Judge vide judgment dated 29/04/1997; hence the present appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

(3.) Apparently, the refusal to renew the licence was based on the ground that the lease with respect to the land on which the saw mill was situated had not been renewed by the lessor in favour of the appellant-petitioner-lessee. This ground, however, was countenanced by the learned single Judge who, on this question held in favour of the appellant by declaring that the non refusal of the lease of the lessor could not be a ground for refusing to renew the licence for running the saw mill.