Mohammad Saleem vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Manoj K. Tiwari, J

The Appellant, filed a writ petition before learned Single Judge of this Court, contending that in the year 1982 a sawmill licence was issued in his

favour, which was renewed upto 1997, and subsequently it was cancelled on 17.12.1998 on the basis of F.I.R. dated 30.07.1998. It was alleged that

husband of respondent No. 4, in collusion with the Forest Authorities, succeeded in getting the sawmill licence belonging to the appellant issued in his

name, through manipulation. Thus, it was his contention in the writ petition that no licence has been issued in favour of respondent No. 4 or her

husband Sri Saleem S/o Abdul Sattar and respondent No. 4 is running sawmill on the strength of the licence, which belongs to the appellant.

The reliefs, sought by the appellant in his writ petition, are as follows:-

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 10.03.2007 passed by the respondent no. 3 and further be pleased

to direct the respondent no. 2 to pass fresh order on the representation of the petitioner after conducting detail inquiry about the Shaw mill licence no.

5/82 of the husband of the respondent no. 4, which is now transferred in the name of the respondent no. 4.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondent no. 1, 2 & 3 to take decision on the cancellation of

licence of saw-Mill of the respondent No. 4.

From the pleadings made and the relief sought in the writ petition, it is apparent that a factual dispute was raised by the appellant in his writ petition,

namely, whether the licence possessed by respondent No. 4 was actually issued in favour of respondent No. 4 or her husband, or not. We are afraid

that such dispute cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In the writ petition, challenge was thrown to the order passed by Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, whereby the matter was decided against

the appellant and it was held that there is no substance in his allegation that respondent No. 4 has obtained the sawmill licence by using deceitful

means. In the absence of any valid reason for setting aside the order passed by Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, learned Single Judge was

justified in dismissing the writ petition.

During the course of arguments, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State has drawn attention of this Court towards SPA No. 368 of 2018

(which is on board today), wherein appellant is seeking renewal of sawmill licence granted to him. In the present appeal, appellant contends that the

licence possessed by respondent No. 4 belongs to him, which amounts to an admission that appellant is not having sawmill licence at the moment.

Appellant has sought cancellation of sawmill licence issued in favour of respondent No. 4 in the present appeal.

These contrary stands taken by the appellant in the two appeals, which were heard together, indicate that there is no substance in the allegation

made by him against respondent No. 4.

Moreover, the question raised by the appellant that respondent No. 4 is running sawmill on the strength of licence, which belongs to the appellant, is

highly disputed question of fact. The licence for running sawmill is granted by Forest Authorities, therefore, they are in a better position to decide

whether there is any substance in the allegation made by appellant or not.

Upon perusal of order passed by Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, we find that cogent reasons have been given for arriving at the conclusion

that appellant was not issued any sawmill licence and that the licence was issued in favour of husband of respondent No. 4. Therefore, in the absence

of any infirmity in the said order, learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition.

In such view of the matter, we are not persuaded to take a view different from the one taken by learned Single Judge. In the absence of any

infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgment, there is no scope of interference.

Accordingly, special appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.