Sartaj Khan vs State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 13590 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 2
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3514 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Sartaj Khan
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. U.P. Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Pratap Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

Heard.

After arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh, submitted that this petition does not relate to two Charcoal furnaces, license of which was issued on 09.08.2011 and, which, as per stand of the opposite parties, was cancelled on 06.04.2017, but, it relates to 13 other Charcoal furnaces which the petitioner had been operating since prior to coming into force of the Rules, 2010 and which he was operating in pursuance to the judgment of this Court dated 15.09.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 9168 (MB) of 2010 and in pursuance to which an order dated 19.10.2010 was issued by the Divisional Director Social Forestry Division, Raebareli. He says that petitioner is ready to close down these 13 Charcoal furnaces with liberty to him to apply for grant of license afresh in terms of the Rules, 2010.

At the very outset, we had asked the counsel for the parties to inform us as to whether there was a requirement for obtaining such license w.e.f. 13.12.2010 when the Rules known as Uttar Pradesh Koyala Bhatti Sthapna Evam Viniyaman Niyamawali, 2010 came into force, learned counsel for the parties including the petitioner's accepted the fact that it was necessary to obtain such license, but, no such license was obtained by the petitioner.

Petitioner's counsel says that he was under a mistaken belief that he was entitled to operate the Charcoal furnaces under the judgment dated 15.09.2010.

We have perused the judgment dated 15.09.2010, but, we do not find anything therein which would absolve the petitioner from obtaining a license for operating the said furnaces on or after 13.12.2010 nor do we find anything in the order of the Divisional Director referred hereinabove dated 19.10.2010, however, in view of the statement made by the petitioner's counsel, Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh, let him close down the Charcoal furnaces immediately and the opposite parties shall ensure the same, unless they have already been closed down and thereafter, if it is permissible in law, and there is no other legal impediment, petitioner may apply afresh for grant of license for said furnaces which can be considered as per law. If such an application is filed within one week, the same shall be considered and decided at the earliest, say, within one month thereafter.

The petition is disposed of without interfering with the impugned order, but, subject to the aforesaid.

[Saurabh Lavania, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.]

Order Date :- 1.5.2023

Santosh/-