M/S Bihar Plywood And Timber ... vs State Of Jharkhand & Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 1831 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  (Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
                 W.P. (C) No. 2694 of 2008
                         ........

M/s Bihar Plywood and Timber Industries ..... Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand & Others .... ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through :- Video Conferencing) ............

For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate.

Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate.

For the Respondent/State : Mr. Suresh Kumar, S.C. (L&C)-II ........

10/06.05.2022.

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Indrajit Sinha assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Ankit Vishal and learned counsel for the respondent / State, Mr. Suresh Kumar, S.C. (L&C)-II.

Petitioner - M/s Bihar Plywood and Timber Industries, having its office at Old H.B. Road, Kokar Chowk, P.O. - Lalpur, P.S. - Sadar, District - Ranchi, through its proprietor Mr. Alok Kumar Gupta, son of Late Radhe Shyam Gupta, resident of H.B. Road, Kokar Chowk, P.O. - Lalpur, P.S.- Sadar, District - Ranchi, has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 14.08.2007 passed by Conservator of Forest-cum-Authorized Officer, Ranchi in Appeal Case No. 07/2004, whereby the order dated 29.11.2004 passed by the Licensing Authority-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Ranchi East Forest Division, Ranchi has been upheld and appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

Petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order dated 29.11.2004 passed the Licensing Authority-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Ranchi East Forest Division, Ranchi, whereby the petitioner's saw mill license has been cancelled and subsequently vide Letter No. 2991 dated 15.12.2004, the Divisional Forest Officer, Ranchi East Forest Division, Ranchi has refunded the renewal fee of Rs. 1,000/- vide Draft No. 252145 dated 16.11.2004 to the petitioner.

Petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to renew the license of Saw Mill of the petitioner under Rule 7 (5) (1) of Bihar / Jharkhand Saw Mill (Regulation) Act, 1990.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Indrajit Sinha assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Ankit Vishal has assailed the impugned orders on the ground that no notice under proviso of sub-section 2 to Section 7 of the Bihar / Jharkhand Saw Mills (Regulation) Act, 1990 (hereinafter referred as 'Act of 1990') has been issued for cancellation of License, rather a proceeding has been initiated separately, when the petitioner has applied for renewal of his license under sub-Section 5 of the Section 7 of Act of 1990.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that respondent authorities have not considered the material brought on record, as those are sufficient to establish that the Saw Mill of the petitioner was never ceased to operate and thus impugned order is bad in law.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Krishna Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Others reported in (2017) 3 SCC 1. Relevant paragraph is 65, which may profitably be quoted hereunder:-

"65. Article 213(2)(a) postulates that an ordinance would cease to operate upon the expiry of a period of six weeks of the reassembly of the legislature. The Oxford English dictionary defines the expression "cease" as : "to stop, give over, discontinue, desist; to come to the end." P Ramanatha Aiyar's, The Major Law Lexicon defines the expression "cease" to mean "discontinue or put an end to". Justice C K Thakker's Encyclopaedic Law Lexicon defines the word "cease" as meaning: "to put an end to; to stop, to terminate or to discontinue". The expression has been defined in similar terms in Black's Law Dictionary."

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that petitioner has applied for renewal of the license, but instead of renewing the license on the basis of material available on record, a proceeding has been initiated under Section 7 of the Act of 1990 and without complying the necessary provisions, not only order has been passed under Section 7 (5) of the Act, but it also gives a smack of Section 7(4) of the Act, without issuing any notice under proviso

of Section 7(2) of the Act, as such, the impugned order is bad in law.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that petitioner has not violated any of the terms and conditions of the License, but because of accident, his legs and hand got fracture and because of illness of his father due to oesophagus cancer, who ultimately died on 26.07.2003, there was less work than the minimum requirement per month, but the license of the petitioner, which was since 1964 cannot be terminated in such a fanciful manner by the respondent authorities, as such, the impugned order is bad in law.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed some document virtually before this Court as the court is functioning virtually, to establish that petitioner has worked during that period also, as such the allegation, which has been levelled against the petitioner, that his Saw Mill has ceased to operate, is not proper, which requires interference by this Court.

Learned counsel for the respondents / State, Mr. Suresh Kumar, S.C. (L&C)-II has submitted, that impugned orders do not require any interference by this Court, rather all the provisions of Section 7 of the Act of 1990 and principles of natural justice have been complied with and then after being satisfied on the facts, such orders have been passed against the petitioner, whereby the renewal of the license has been considered and on the basis of the report called for, it was found that the Saw Mill was not operating for a quite long time i.e. from year 2000 to 2003. Thus, a notice was issued to the petitioner on 12.05.2004, though the said notice was in compliance of principles of natural justice and it was only mentioned with regard to Rule 7 (5) (1) of the Act and as such, even if the orders have been passed under Section 7 (4) and (5) of the Act of 1990, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner, as the petitioner was given ample opportunity to explain his position.

Learned counsel for the respondents / State has further submitted, that not only, the Saw Mill has ceased to operate, but when such notice was issued in compliance of provisions of the Act

of 1990 and in compliance of principles of natural justice, the petitioner tried to show that in the year 2004, they have sawing 13.96 cubic meter and thus, they have violated the terms and conditions of the License as because admittedly for the year 2004, there was no license of the petitioner to run the Saw Mill.

Learned counsel for the respondents / State has thus submitted, that this Court may not interfere in the fact findings recorded by the Licensing Authority, affirmed by the appellate authority and also in view of subsequent judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in M/s Annapurna Saw Mill, which has been brought on record as Annexure-I to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the impugned orders do not require any interference by this Court.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Indrajit Sinha assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Ankit Vishal, learned counsel for the respondent / State, Mr. Suresh Kumar, S.C. (L&C)-II and on the basis of the materials available on the record as well as counter affidavit and the document placed by the petitioner, it appears that petitioner was having an Saw Mill License since 1964, which was renewed time to time till 2003. The petitioner filed an application in the year 2004 for renewal of his license under Section 7 of the Bihar / Jharkhand Saw Mills (Regulation) Act, 1990, which deals with grant, renewal, revocation or suspension of license.

7. Grant, renewal, revocation or suspension of licence. - (1) An application for licence under Section 5 shall be in such form and shall be accompanied by such application fee and such security deposit for due observance of the conditions of the licence, as may be prescribed.

(2) On receipt of the application under sub-section (1), the Licensing Officer may after making such enquiry, as it may deem fit:-

(i) grant the licence; or

(ii) by order in writing for reason in brief to be stated therein, refuse to grant the licence:

Provided that no order refusing to grant the licence shall be passed unless the applicant has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (3) A licence granted under sub-section (2) shall be subject to the provisions of this Act and to such conditions as may be prescribed.

(4) The provisions of this Section shall apply to renewal of licence as they apply to grant of licence or refusal to grant a licence. (5) If the Licensing Officer is satisfied, either on a reference made to it in this behalf or otherwise, that-

(a) the licensee has parted, in whole or in part with his control over the saw mill or saw pit or has otherwise ceased to operate or own such mill or saw pit; or

(b) the licensee has without reasonable cause, failed to comply with any of the conditions of the licence or any direction lawfully given by the Licensing Officer or has contravened any of the provisions of this Act or the Rules made thereunder; or

(c) the licensee has, in the premises of the saw mill or saw pit-wood which he is not able to account for satisfactorily and consequently which is liable for confiscation under Section 10.

Then without prejudice to any other penalty to which licensee may be liable under this Act the Licensing Officer may, after giving the licensee an opportunity of showing cause, revoke, or suspend the licence and forfeit the sum, if any, or any portion thereof deposited as security for the due performance of the conditions subject to which the licence has been granted. (6) A copy of every order issued under sub-section (5) shall be given to the licensee.

During consideration of application for renewal of license of the petitioner, the respondent called for a report from the Forest Range Officer, Timber Depot, Ranchi and as per the report submitted by Forest Range Officer, the Saw Mill is completely closed as no work is being done, which is in violation of Section 9 of the Act of 1990. As the Saw Mill comes under the provisions "cease to operate" as envisaged under Section 7(5)(a) of the Act of 1990, the notice has been issued to the petitioner for refusal to grant licence also. The notice was duly served. The petitioner filed his show cause, which has been brought on record as Annexure-3. The relevant paras of the show cause have been recorded hereunder:-

5. I met with a road accident in the year 2002 causing fracture and of my legs and hand due to which I remained bed ridden for a period of more than a year under constant treatment. This is one of the reasons for lesser transaction.

6. My father, Radheshyam Gupta was an old ailing person suffering from Oeosephagus Cancer, who remained in long

treatment at Chennai and ultimately, he left us on 26.7.2003. This is the second reason for lesser transaction.

7. M/s Usha Martin Ltd. and M/s Usha Baltron Ltd. are the main purchasers but during this period no purchase orders were placed by them and as such this is the 3 rd reason for lesser transaction.

This show cause of the petitioner is sufficient to establish that atleast for one year, petitioner was not in a position to control the Saw Mill and thus it was operated or not operated is question of facts, which has been taken note by the Licensing Authority while passing the order dated 29.11.2004. The Licensing Authority has considered the documents, which have been produced by the petitioner, showing that in the year 2001, petitioner has purchased 613.3 cubic meter wood and sold 569.28 cubic meter in the same year. Similarly for the year 2002, petitioner has purchased 344.04 cubic meter wood and sold more than what he has purchased i.e. 346.98 Cubic meter, which may be left over of the stock of the year 2001, as no purchase was made after August, 2002 and similarly no purchase was made from January, 2003 to September, 2004. When show cause was issued to the petitioner, the petitioner has tried to show that 13 cubic meter wood have been sawed. At the time of show cause, as per the stock in the month of September, 2003, 9.21 cubic meter wood was there, which has been reduced to 7.308 cubic meter. The fact was not acceptable to the Licensing Authority and thus Licensing Authority has considered the entire materials produced by the petitioner pursuant to his show cause and came to a finding of fact that the Saw Mill was not working since August, 2002. The licensing Authority has also considered that the figure, which has been produced by the petitioner is not correct as the residuary, which is used as fire wood has not been found. Thus, the licensing authority has exercised his power under Section 7 particularly 7(4) and 7(5) of the Act of 1990 by not renewing the license of the petitioner and thus passed an order on 29.11.2004, which has been communicated to the petitioner vide letter no. 2991 dated 15.12.2004, by which amount of renewal has been refunded.

The said order was assailed before the appellate authority i.e. the Conservator of Forest - cum - Authorized Officer under Section 12 of the Act of 1990. The Conservator of Forest has given opportunity of hearing and taken note of the work done by the petitioner against the monthly capacity, which has been decided on the basis of application submitted by the petitioner and table for the same was also prepared, which is as follows:-

Ø- la- Dsys.Mj   vuqKfIr   vkosnd ds okf"kZd   vkjk     {kerk  ds
       o"kZ      la[;k     vkosnu ,oa {kerk M³ fey }kjk fo:/k
                           vuqKfIr ds          okLrfod okLrfod
                           vuqlkj              fpjku dh ek=k
                           ekfld               ek=k M³ izfr'kr
                           {kerk M³





5        2004    --        100 M³      1200 M³ 13.96 M³ 1.16

Thus, both the authorities have found that no work was done at the Saw Mill of the petitioner in the year 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and if sawing of 13.96 cubic meter of wood is considered for the year 2004, then it is in violation of the terms and conditions of the license of the petitioner, which was pending for renewal and thus the impugned order has been passed by learned appellate authority affirming the order of the Licensing Authority.

This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot look into the facts, no infirmity has been shown before this Court to establish that how the petitioner has prejudiced as because petitioner has filed an application for renewal. During inquiry for renewal, it was found that petitioner's Saw Mill has ceased to operate. Thus, notice was issued to the petitioner and after giving opportunity to the petitioner and following the principles of natural justice, a reasoned order has been passed by the Licensing Authority, disputing and disbelieving the claim of the petitioner. Apart from that petitioner has tried to show that even in the year 2004, they

have sawed 13.96 cubic meter wood without realizing the fact, that this is the act in contravention of license as because he has no license for the year 2004.

Accordingly, this Court concurs with the orders passed by the Licensing Authority and appellate authority, as there is no illegality and infirmity to interfere with the same.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sunil/-