JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This writ petition has been
filed for quashing the order dated 6th April,
2005 which has been passed by the Regional
Director, Samajik Vaniki Van Prabhag,
Fatehpur (hereinafter referred to as the
'Regional Director') rejecting the application
filed by the petitioner for grant of Saw Mill
licence. The said order was passed pursuant to the directions issued by this Court
on 21st January, 2005 in Writ Petition No.
27395 of 2004.
(2.)The facts stated in the petition reveal
that earlier the Saw Mill belonged to Sri Ram
Agarwal who had been granted a licence to
run saw mill. The saw mill was sold to one
Sri Narendra Kumar Singh on 2nd February, 1989 and thereafter it was sold by Sri
Narendra Kumar Singh to the petitioner for
a consideration of Rs. 25.000/-. The petitioner then submitted an application dated
2nd April, 1989 to the Range Officer for
transfer of the licence in his favour and for
permission to deposit the renewal licence
fee. It appears on the basis of the aforesaid
application, the petitioner deposited the licence fee of Rs. 1.000/- in 1990, 1991 and
1992. The licence was, however, not renewed
and, therefore, the petitioner filed a writ
petition in this Court which was disposed of
on 20th October. 2003 with a direction to
decide the representation of the petitioner.
The application of the petitioner for renewal
of the licence was rejected and this was challenged by
the petitioner by filing a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 12350 of 2004
which was disposed of on 25th March, 2004
with a direction that the application filed by
the petitioner for grant of saw mill licence
shall be considered afresh in accordance
with law. By the order dated 24th June,
2004 the application was again rejected.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed yet
another Writ Petition No. 27395 of 2004. The
Court by means of the judgment and order
dated 28th January, 2005 set aside the order dated 24th June, 2004 and remanded
the matter back to the Regional Director to
decide it afresh in accordance with law. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions of this
Court, the matter has been considered at
length by the Regional Director in the order
dated 6th April, 2005 which has been impugned in the present petition.
(3.)We have heard the petitioner in person and the learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the respondents and have perused the material available on record.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.