Rakesh Tiwari - (1.) -This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 7.7.2001, passed by respondent No. 1 and 5.10.2000, passed by respondent No. 2. The petitioner has prayed for : (i) quashing of the order dated 7.7.2001, Annexure-9 to the writ petition, passed by respondent No. 1 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 5.10.2000 ; (ii) quashing of the order dated 5.10.2000, Annexure-7 to the writ petition, passed by the respondent No. 2 rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of licence under the provisions of U. P. Establishment and Regulation of Saw Mills, 1978 ; (iii) direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 to grant licence to the petitioner as per provision contained in proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules. OR Issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to dispose of the application of the petitioner for grant of fresh licence under the rules without taking into consideration the order dated 16.9.1998, passed by the respondent No. 3 ; (iv) any other writ order or direction as may be deemed fit and proper by this Court.
(2.) CIVIL Misc. Writ Petition No. 36910 of 2000, Sardar Khan v. Prabhagiya Nideshak and others, was filed by the petitioners with a prayer for mandamus for disposal of the application for grant of licence under Rules, as they stood after the amendment in 1998. The said writ petition was disposed of with the following directions : "We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The writ petition is disposed of with the direction that in case the petitioner moves a fresh application for grant of licence in accordance with U. P. Establishment and Regulation of Saw Mills Rules, 1978 as amended by U. P. Establishment and Regulation of Saw Mills (Second Amendment) Rules, 1998 within a month the same shall be disposed of expeditiously keeping in view the directions issued by the Supreme Court in this regard. Sd. Shyamal Kumar Sen, C.J. Sd. G. P. Mathur, J. 31.8.2000." It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has been enacted to consolidate law relating to Forests. The State Government has been clothed with the power to make rules under Section 51 of the Act in respect of the saw mills. State Legislature amended the Act by addition of Section 51A provided for regulatory powers in respect of manufacture of articles based on forest produce and for making rules in respect of saw mills. Relevant portion of Section 51A for the purposes of the present case is quoted below : "51A. Power to regulate, manufacture etc., of articles based on forest produce : The State Government may make rules : (a) to provide for establishment and regulation or otherwise and payment of fees therefor or saw mills and mills including factories engaged in the manufacture or preparation of : (i) .... (ii) .... (iii) .... (iv) .... (b) ...." The U. P. Establishment and Regulation of Saw Mills Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') were amended in 1998 by notification dated 26.6.1998.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 4 of the Rules provides that any person desirous to establish a saw mill shall make an application to the Divisional Forest Officer concerned. Rules 6 and 7 deal with the matters regarding period of validity and renewal of licence. He further submits that the petitioner is licence holder under various statutes, such as U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam and U. P. Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam and was never convicted or prosecuted under Section 77 of the Indian Forests Act, 1927. He also submits that a Public Interest Litigation being Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995, T. N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India and others, was filed before Hon'ble the Supreme Court wherein certain orders had been passed from time to time. One of the orders dated 4.3.1997 in T. N. Godavarman Thirmulpad v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 312 : JT 1997 (3) SC 338, is to the effect that all the unlicenced saw mills should be closed forthwith. State of U. P. filed an application for modification of orders passed by the Apex Court which was allowed by the Apex Court and orders passed in T. N. Godavarman Thirumalpad (supra) were modified granting permission to the State to amend the Rules. Accordingly, the State of U. P. amended the Rules with effect from 26.6.1989.;