Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Jagannath Mondal vs Union Of India & Ors on 6 February, 2019

Author: Shampa Sarkar

Bench: Shampa Sarkar

                                          1


06.02.2019
   srm

                                     W.P. No. 16900 (W) of 2018

                                         Jagannath Mondal
                                               versus
                                        Union of India & Ors.

                       Mr. Lutful Haque,
                       Mr. Gomal Karim Chowdhury
                                                                     ...for the Petitioner.
                       Mr. Ashim Kumar Ganguly,
                       Mr. Bellal Shaikh
                                                                         ...for the State.



                   This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of

             temporary rejection of renewal of licence of the petitioner to run his

             sawmill passed by the Authorised Officer‐cum‐Divisional Forest Officer,

             Birbhum Division pursuant to an order of this Court dated July 17, 2015.

                   Admittedly, the petitioner has not filed any appeal against the

             said order thereby, not exhausting the statutory remedy available to him.

             Instead, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

                   It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the reason for

             temporary rejection of his application for renewal of the licence was

             pendency of the Criminal Case No.328 of 2015, which was pending in

             the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suri, Birbhum. It is

             also submitted by him that the said criminal case had been dismissed for
                             2


default in March, 2018. Hence the petitioner filed this writ petition as the

ground for temporary rejection no longer existed.

      Today, the learned Advocate for the State‐respondents submits,

on instruction, that the proceeding before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate being Criminal Case No.328 of 2015 was dismissed for default but steps have been taken for restoration of the same. According to the learned Advocate for the State‐respondents, the machine seized by the respondents has been kept in Zimma and cannot be returned to the petitioner.

As the criminal case has been dismissed for default, in case it is not restored within a period of two months, the application for renewal of the licence of the petitioner shall be considered once again in accordance with law and the petitioner is also given liberty to make an appropriate application for return of the machine which shall be decided in accordance with law before the appropriate forum.

Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.

Photostat certified copy of this order be given to the parties on priority basis.

(Shampa Sarkar, J.) 3