IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 356 of 2006
The State of Jharkhand & Others ... ... ... Appellants
Versus
Abdul Razzaque Khan ... ... ... ... Respondent
------
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. Y. EQBAL
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. SINHA
------
For the Appellants: M/s A. Allam, Sr. S.C. II,
Shrawan Kr. J.C. to S.C.II
For the Respondent: M/s A.K. Sahani
------
12/ 17.03.2009
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6.05.2005
passed in W.P. (Cr.) No. 354 of 2004 by which the learned Single
Judge allowed the Writ petition by passing following order:
“Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This is an application for renewal of licence.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that
petitioner was earlier granted licence under Bihar
Saw Mill (Regulation) Act, but after lapse of
licence, he made a prayer for renewal of licence,
which was refused by the licensing authority on the
ground that the petitioner is facing several cases
and that too related to forest offence.
From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of
the State, it appears that there are three cases
pending against this petitioner relating to
commission of forest offence. But as per provisions
as laid down under Rule 7 (2) of Bihar Saw Mill
(Regulation) Act, licence cannot be granted to a
person only in case he is convicted. In the instant
case, the petitioner has not been convicted.
In that view of the matter, the impugned
order dated 10.04.2003 is set aside and the
Licensing Authority is directed to renew the licence
in favour of the petitioner within two months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the aforesaid observations, this
application is disposed of.”
However, in course of argument, it was brought to our
notice that immediately after the impugned judgment was passed,
the licence of the petitioner was renewed before filing of the instant
appeal. Hence, the licence which has already been renewed by the
authority cannot be looked into and, accordingly, this appeal has
become infructuous.
Hence, this appeal is dismissed as infructuous.
(M. Y. Eqbal, J)
( D.K. Sinha , J)
Alankar/-