Allahabad High Court
Shahzad Shirani vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 5 January, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 968 of 2020
Petitioner :- Shahzad Shirani
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shakil Ahmad
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Petitioner has approached this Court earlier in Writ-C No. 17846 of 2019, which was disposed of vide order dated 23.05.2019 and operative portion of the order is quoted hereinafter:
?In view of the fact that the application of the petitioner for grant of licence is pending, we direct the State Level Committee to decide the application of the petitioner for grant of licence expeditiously.
We further permit the petitioner to file a fresh application within two weeks from today, along with certified copy of this order, before the respondent no. 2, who shall pass the orders on the said application, in accordance with law, within a period of two months, from the date of production of a certified copy of the order.
It is made clear that we have not expressed our opinion on merits and the respondent no. 2 is directed to take a decision independently and in accordance with law.
The writ petition is disposed of.?
2. In pursuance of above order, petitioner filed application dated 10.06.2019. State Government in compliance of orders dated 18.05.2007 and 05.10.2015 passed by Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs. Union of India, (Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1993), and in pursuance of relevant Saw Mill Rules (as amended), conducted online lottery after giving it proper publication. Application of petitioner was forwarded by Scrutiny Committee with comment that ?the applicant does not meet net worth criteria?. Shortcomings were removed and thereafter it was forwarded for further consideration with observation ?SLC found these applicants eligible?. Petitioner was allowed to appear before State Level Committee and in terms of Section 4 of U.P. Establishment and Regulation of Saw Mills (Sixth Amendment) Rules, 2018, online lottery was organized, however, petitioner was not selected.
3. Sri Shakil Ahmad, learned counsel for petitioner, submits that there was no requirement of any licence for Circular Saw having a diameter upto 60 centimeters and he placed reliance on a judgment passed by Supreme Court in State of U.P. and others vs. Uday Education and Welfare Trust and another, (Civil Appeal Nos. 2407-2412), decided on 21.10.2022. Learned counsel further submits that appeal of petitioner was also dismissed on erroneous grounds.
4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for State-Respondents, has opposed the above submissions and submits that procedure prescribed by Supreme Court as well as Amendment Rules, 2018 were strictly followed. Application of petitioner was considered, however, he was not found successful in online lottery.
5. It is not in dispute that in pursuance of order passed by this Court petitioner has filed application which was considered, however, he was not found successful in online lottery system. Argument of learned counsel for petitioner that there is no requirement of licence for Circular Saw having diameter upto 60 centimeters is absolutely erroneous as in Amendment Rules, 2018 it is specifically provided that State Level Committee can provide licence for Circular Saw having diameter upto 60 centimeters. Petitioner has not challenged the procedure of online lottery, based on Section 4 of Amendment Rules, 2018. Application of petitioner was considered, however, he was not found successful in online lottery system and since there is no illegality in the process adopted by respondents, I do not find any reason to interfere.
6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.1.2023
AK
