GANPATI FUELS, DHANBAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. R. S. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and J.C. to S.C. I for the Respondent -State.

(2.) PETITIONER , in this writ application, has prayed for a direction for quashing the impugned order dated 14.03.2007, contained in Memo No. 62, issued by the Respondent No. 4 (Annexure -5), whereby the petitioner's prayer for renewal of license, granted to him under the Factories Act for the year 2007 was rejected and further intimation conveyed that his license itself has been cancelled.

(3.) COUNTER affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents. Learned counsel for the Respondent -State by reference to the several paragraphs of the counter affidavit, would explain that the instant writ application is totally misconceived and not maintainable for the reliefs claimed. Learned counsel would explain that in order to stop illegal coal mining and for regulating supply of coal linkage, the State Government has taken firm steps to identify such concerns which have not been carrying on coal mining operations and have been misusing the privilege of the license granted to them. Referring to Annexures 1 and 3 to the writ application, learned counsel submits that the Factory of the petitioner was not operational during the aforesaid period and this [W.P. (L) No. 6101 of 2008] would be evident from the fact that for the purposes of manufacturing of coal and briquette, a large number of workers are required but as per the statements given by the petitioner himself, during the period of four months i.e. from December, 2006 to March, 2007, only ten workers were engaged and to whom a total wage of Rs.59,790/ - was paid for the entire four months Learned counsel submits further that pursuant to a direction received from the Joint Secretary -cum -Labour Commissioner, Jharkhand, an inspection was carried out by a Committee constituted by the Chief Inspector of Factories, and upon inspection of the petitioner's factory premises, the petitioner's factory was found closed, and it was gathered that the petitioner's unit was not in operation for the past six months. As such, the petitioner's license was not renewed for the year 2007 and for the same reasons, his license was cancelled. Learned counsel adds that the petitioner's demand for renewal of the license for the year 2008 cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the period of the former license having lapsed by efflux of time without its being renewed, the petitioner cannot claim any renewal of a license, which had already spent its force.