- (1.) THIS present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Gulam Mustafa for quashing the order dated 06.06.2000 (Annexure no. 16 to the writ petition) whereby the Divisional Forest Officer, Bahraich has rejected the application for renewal of the license of petitioner's Saw Mill.
(2.) THE necessary facts for deciding the writ petition are that the petitioner applied for license to run the Saw Mill in terms of U.P. Establishment and Regulations of Saw Mills Rule, 1978. The license was issued to run the Saw Mill to the petitioner in the year 1978 having license no. 14 of 1986. After expiry of the license period, the petitioner applied for renewal of the license after depositing the requisite fee but according to the petitioner, even after depositing the fee on 03.02.1988, the license was not renewed. The petitioner again applied for renewal of license in the year 1989 but respondent no. 4 -Divisional Forest Officer, Bahraich did not accept the renewal fee. Thereafter, the Divisional Forest Officer, Bahrach issued a notice dated 28.07.1989 (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition) to Gulam Rasool, the brother of the petitioner to show cause as to why his license No. 14 of 1986 may not be cancelled. The show case required under the notice on the following point: - 1. That license No. 14 of 1986 was not got renewed and requisite fee has not been paid for renewal. 2. That the saw mill is being run without renewal. 3. That illegal woods were found on the Saw Mill by Range Officer and the Range Case No. 97 of 1987 -88 was registered wherein a compensation of Rs. 7,220/ - was recovered from you. 4. That in the Saw Mill the woods are illegally kept and its sawing is made in the night candidly. 5. In view of facts disclosed above shows that the conditions of license issued have been violated.
(3.) BY the aforesaid notice, one week's time was allowed to file reply. The notice was replied by the petitioner by its reply dated 01.08.1989 (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition) wherein it has been mentioned that his brother Gulam Rasool was not having any Saw Mill. The license number mentioned in the notice belongs to the petitioner for which renewal/ registration fee up to the year 1989 has already been deposited and he runs his Saw Mill and the allegations levelled in the notice are baseless. It is also mentioned therein that the registration fee for the year 1989 has not been accepted and the authorities did not return the license. In this reply the petitioner was also prayed for acceptance of the fee for registration/ renewal for the year 1989 and also not to create any disturbance in running of the Saw Mill. From the perusal of the record and contents contained in pleadings of the opposite parties, it appears that the respondent no. 4 issued a corrigendum on 04.08.1989 and corrected the name in the notice dated 28.07.1989. Thereafter no reply was submitted. The licencing authority after considering the reply, cancelled the license vide order dated 25.08.1989.;