Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Suman Sanjoy Jana vs State Of West Bengal And Others on 7 December, 2016
Author: Samapti Chatterjee
Bench: Samapti Chatterjee
1
07.12.2016 W. P. 24982 (W) of 2016
29
suman Sanjoy Jana
vs.
State of West Bengal and others
Mr. Subir Sanyal
Mr. Kamal Mishra
Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee
Mr. Tamal Taru Panda
....for the petitioner
Mr. Biswajit De
Ms. Tapati Samanta
...for the State
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition
assailing the impugned action on the part of the
respondent authority whereby the respondent authority
sometime in April, 2015 directed the petitioner not to run his Saw Mill.
Mr. Sanyal, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that some time in 2001 the petitioner set up his Saw Mill on the plot of his land with the approval / consent of the concerned authority. Thereafter on 27th July, 2001 certificate of enlistment was issued in favour of the petitioner in order to enable the petitioner to operate his proposed Saw Mill. The petitioner has been running the said Saw Mill since 2001. In support of his contention Mr. Sanyal draws my attention at pages 66 - 67 of the writ petition wherefrom 2 it reveals that under serial No.1644 the name of the petitioner's Saw Mill is appearing in the list of "wood based industries (General Category) indicating their provisional seniority in the State of West Bengal." Mr. Sanyal further contends that the petitioner's firm has already deposited licence fee amounting to Rs.300/- which is appearing at page 41 of the writ petition. Despite receiving the fees for granting licence till date no licence has been issued in favour of the petitioner for running the said Saw Mill though the petitioner is an enlisted Saw Mill owner under the State of West Bengal. Mr. Sanyal further submits that it reveals from pages 52 to 65 of the writ petition that the petitioner has complied with all formalities as directed by the concerned authority. But unfortunately, till date no formal licence has been issued in favour of the petitioner to run the said business. On the contrary the authority whimsically and arbitrarily directed the petitioner to run the said Saw Mill business from April, 2015. Hence the present writ petition.
In the present writ petition despite direction for filing affidavit the respondent authority failed to file affidavit- in-opposition.
Mr. De, learned advocate appearing for the State, submits that respondent no.4 should be directed to 3 consider the petitioner's application for granting licence pending before him within a stipulated time.
Considering the submission advanced by the learned advocates and after perusing the record I am of the view that since the name of the petitioner's Saw Mill has been enlisted in the list of wood based industries under serial No. 1644 and pursuant to that the petitioner has already applied for the formal licence thereby complying all the formalities. Respondent authority was under obligation to take decision on that issue. But unfortunately from April, 2015 the petitioner was verbally directed by the authority not to run his said Saw Mill without showing any reason. As a result whereof, the petitioner is out of business for almost eight months. Therefore, in my opinion justice would be sub-served if the respondent no.4, the Forest Range Officer, Bajpur Forest Range is directed to consider the petitioner's application for grant of formal licence appearing at pages 52 to 65 in accordance with law within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his authorized representative and thereafter communicate the decision to the petitioner within two weeks.
Needless to mention that till such communication of the decision is communicated to the petitioner, the 4 petitioner shall be allowed to run the said Saw Mill if he is otherwise entitled. Needless to mention if the decision comes in favour of the petitioner then the authority will take steps to issue formal licence thereby allowing the petitioner to continue the said Saw Mill and if the decision is otherwise then the authority is at liberty to take steps in accordance with law.
With this direction the writ petition is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties on usual undertakings.
(Samapti Chatterjee, J.)