RAVINDRA v. GHUGEAND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ
Legal Reasoning
1401.24wp(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 904 WRIT PETITION NO. 1401 OF 2024Umiya Saw Mill,Through its DirectorShri. Tokarsi Ratansi Patel,Age: 67 years, Occ: Business,R/o. Valabhbhai Patel Road, Near Ulhas Takies Pachora, Tq. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon….PETITIONERVERSUS1)State of Maharashtra,Through its Secretary,Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-322)The Conservator of Forest,Jalgaon Forest Dept.,Jalgaon3)The Forest Range Officer (Regional),Pachora, Tq. Pachora,Dist. Jalgaon ….RESPONDENTS ….Mr Sanket N. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Petitioner;Mr S. B. Narwade, A.G.P. for Respondents/State CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGEAND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ. 1401.24wp(2) DATE : 7th February, 2024ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.)1.Leave to correct the description of Respondent No.2.Correction be carried out forthwith.2.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heardfinally by the consent of the learned Advocates for the respectivesides.3.A short issue is before us for adjudication, in the lightof prayer clauses (B) and (C) put forth by the Petitioner/Saw Mill,as under :-“B)By appropriate writ order or direction set aside theimpugned communication dated 01.01.2024 issued by theRespondent No. 2 and for that purpose issue necessaryorders.C)Pending the hearing and final disposal of the presentwrit petition of this writ petition, grant stay to the effect,operation and implementation to the impugnedcommunication dtd. 01.01.2024 at EXHIBIT-B and permit
Legal Reasoning
1401.24wp(3) the petitioner Saw mill to operate and for that purpose issuenecessary orders.”4.The Petitioner is operating the Saw Mill from 1969.He has received the licence to operate the Mill by complying withall the requisite conditions and his licence has been renewed fromtime to time. It is undisputed that, since 1969, till today, there isno offence registered against the Saw Mill and there is nocomplaint against the same. The renewal of the licence has beenroutinely done by the concerned Authority. In this backdrop, theimpugned order dated 01/01/2024, passed by RespondentNo.2/Deputy Conservator of Forest, Jalgaon Forest Department,Jalagon, has shown a reason for not renewing the licence of theSaw Mill, that the Petitioner has some dispute before the CivilCourt with the original landlord. 5.We have perused the judgment dated 28/02/2008,delivered by this Court in Writ Petition No.6158/2007 (ShriKarsandas Gangaram Patel Vs. State of Maharashtra andothers). In this matter, the Petitioner had approached the ChiefConservator of Forest by filing an appeal against the non-renewal 1401.24wp(4) of the licence by the Competent Authority, which refused renewalpurely for the reason that, there was some dispute between theSaw Mill and the landlord. As the Chief Conservator of Forestdid not pass any order for two months, the Petitioner approachedthis Court, preferring Writ Petition No.2547/2006, which wasdisposed off, with a direction to the concerned Authority to decidethe same. Subsequently, the Appeal was disposed off. Again, thesaid Petitioner had to approach this Court by filing a Writ Petition.6.In a lengthy judgment delivered by this Court in ShriKarsandas Gangaram Patel (supra), it was concluded inparagraph Nos.14 to 16, as under :-“14.It is not in dispute that in the present case Petitioneris running the saw mill from the year 1962 without havingany complaint against him regarding breach of any of theconditions of the licence or commission of any act againstthe conservation of the forest or violation of the activities tobe carried out in operating the saw mill. The facts of thepresent case clearly demonstrate that due to a reason bestknown to the owner, two years after he purchased theproperty or acquired the title to it by any other mode, anobjection has been raised.15. As the saw mill is being operated for more than 45years without there being any complaint, in our considered 1401.24wp(5) opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the present case,objections raised by the landlord of the petitioner appear tobe motivated. In the facts of the present case, it cannot besaid that insistence on the production of no objectioncertificate after renewal of the licence for last 45 years, wasin the interest of the administration. We have alreadypointed out that none of the provisions of the Act or theRules framed thereunder make it obligatory for theapplicant/ Petitioner to submit no objection certificate forobtaining or renewing the licence. Sub Rule (3) of Rule 88merely speaks about the enquiry to be conducted by thecompetent authority for satisfying himself on the questionwhether or not there would be any objection to granting thesanction or licence applied for safeguarding the timber inthe reserved or the protected forest. Insistence onproduction of no objection certificate cannot even remotely,be said to have any relevance to the safeguarding of thetimber in any reserved or protected forest. Therefore, in ourconsidered opinion production of no objection certificate ofthe landlord cannot be one of the pre-requisite for grantinglicence and in appropriate cases, this condition can bedispensed with. The present case appears to be one of thecases where exception can be made. We do not intend to laydown law of universal application, however, considering thefacts of the present case and the provisions of the Statuteand the Rules, we are of the considered opinion that in thepresent case it is not necessary to insist on production of noobjection certificate from the landlord for renewal of thelicence and this condition can be waived as there is noother complaint against the Petitioner who is conductingthe saw mill for last 45 years. As the condition forproduction of objection certificate of the landlord is notessential for achieving any object of the Act or Rules, inappropriate cases the condition can relaxed. Perusal of the 1401.24wp(6) orders passed by Respondent. No.2 and 3, which areimpugned in the present Petition shows that RespondentNos. 2 and 3 have passed the orders without any referenceto the purpose for which there can be insistence onproduction of no objection certificate of the landlord. TheAuthorities must always ensure that the acts done by themand the decisions taken, must be in furtherance of theprovisions of the Statute. Rejection of the application forrenewal of licence without due consideration of the facts ofthe case can not be approved.16. Considering the facts and circumstances of thepresent case and the fact that production of по objectioncertificate of the landlord is not a mandatory conditionwhich can be inferred from any of the provisions of the Actor the Rules, impugned orders can not be sustained.Impugned order dated 3/6/2006 passed by Respondent No.3and order dated 21/5/2007 passed by Respondent No.2 arethus quashed and set aside. The Respondents shall followthe requisite procedure for renewal of the licence of thePetitioner in accordance with the provisions of law anddecide the application of the Petitioner within a period ofsix weeks from today without further insistence onsubmitting no objection certificate from the landlord. ThePetition is, therefore, partly allowed. Rule is made absolutein the aforesaid terms.”7.The learned A.G.P. is right in pointing out that thisCourt held that, it was not laying down a law for universalapplication and the order was passed in the peculiar facts andcircumstances of the case. However, this Court has unequivocally 1401.24wp(7) concluded that, while considering the request for renewal of alicence by the Saw Mill operator, the ‘no objection’ of thelandlord or pendency of any complaint by the landlord, is not tobe taken into account, more so, when the Saw Mill was operatingfor 45 years and there were no complaints against the said SawMill. 8.We are in agreement with the view taken in ShriKarsandas Gangaram Patel (supra), and we have noted that theCourt desired to keep it’s conclusions restricted to the peculiarfacts of the case. It was, however, not recorded in the order thatthe said conclusions would not be cited in any matter involvingidentical circumstances. In Shri Karsandas Gangaram Patel(supra), the Saw Mill was operating for 45 years without anycomplaint. In the case in our hands, the Petitioner is operating theSaw Mill for 54 years from 1969, without any complaint andwithout any offence registered against it. Had any such offencebeen registered, the Competent Authority would have made areference to the same in the impugned order, and that would have 1401.24wp(8) been the basis or the foundation for refusing to grant renewal oflicence. 9.In Shri Karsandas Gangaram Patel (supra), thisCourt has concluded that, the ‘no objection’ of the landlord or anobjection with regard to the privity of contract between thelandlord and the Saw Mill operator, would not be the foundationfor refusing the renewal of licence. We are of the view that, if infuture, the landlord succeeds in evicting the Petitioner and theorder of eviction attains finality, thereby leaving the Petitionerunder an obligation to surrender the possession of the land, theCompetent Authority, in charge of granting renewal of licence,would independently initiate appropriate steps after noticing thatthe Saw Mill operator has been evicted. Until then, as is thecontention before us of the Forest Department that the Petitioneris likely to be evicted in time, this would be a fallacious ground tobe taken into account for refusing renewal of licence to the SawMill, which is operating under strict prescribed conditionsimposed on it, for the last 54 years.
Decision
1401.24wp(9) 10.The learned A.G.P. has pointed out that the Petitionerhas a statutory remedy available of preferring an Appeal with theChief Conservator of Forest. In normal circumstances, he wouldbe appropriate in making such a submission. However, takinginto account the law laid down in Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs.Excise and Taxation Officer cum Assessing Authority, 2023SCC Online SC 95, we find that, it would be rendering thePetitioner to further rigours of litigation in the backdrop of ajudicial pronouncement settling the issue with regard to the samereason cited in the impugned order before us. 11.In view of the above and in the particular facts andcircumstances of this case, keeping in view the law laid down inShri Karsandas Gangaram Patel (supra), this Writ Petition isallowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. 12.We direct the Deputy Conservator of Forest, JalgaonForest Division, Jalgaon, to issue the renewed licence to thePetitioner/Saw Mill, from the date the tenure of the earlierrenewed licence expired. Needless to state, if the landlord 1401.24wp(10) succeeds in evicting the Petitioner from the present location, andif the said order attains finality, we permit Respondent No.2 toinitiate appropriate steps as would be permissible in law. So also,the competent authority would be at liberty to initiate actionagainst the Petitioner if it finds any violation of law or theconditions of the license.13.Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as tocosts.(Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)sjk