IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1098 of 2007 (M/S) Banjarawale Pashu Shav Vicchhedan Swayatt Sahakarita, Village Banjarwala, Post Khas, District Haridwar, Society registered under the societies Registration Act, through its President Mr. Gulfam and another. ….Petitioners Vs State of Uttarakhand, through Secretary Panchayat Raj, Secretariat, Dehradun and others. …..Respondents Sri Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri K.P. Upadhyay, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State. Sri Sharad Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. None appeared for the respondent No.4. Dated: - 25-4-2008 Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Heard Sri Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri K.P. Upadhyay, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State and Sri Sharad Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with a following prayers: - (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondents No. 2 and 3 to grant the licence to the petitioners for collecting, the hides and bones of dead animals for Nyaya Panchayat Banjarwala, District Haridwar in pursuance of the Government order dated 30-3-1996. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the licence/order dated 30-3-2007 issued by the respondent No. 3 in favour of the respondent No.4 (Annexure No.6 and 7 to the writ petition). 2 (c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus calling for the record from the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in regard of the granting licence. (d) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing/commanding the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to invite fresh applications for auction in accordance with law in pursuance of the Government Order dated 30-3-1996. (e) Issue any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in favour of the petitioner. (f) Award the cost of the petition. Brief facts of the case are that the persons namely Gulfam, Khursheed Abdul Rahim, Mustafa, Murtaza, Sanna, Naushad and Sanwar are traditionally engaged in the work of collecting the hides and bones of dead animals since long time and the work of collecting hides and bones is their ancestral work. These persons constituted a society which was registered under the Societies Registration Act namely Banjarawale Pashu Shav Vicchedan Swayatt Samiti. Gulfam is the President of petitioner’s society and on behalf of the petitioner society, he filed the present writ petition. Earlier Gulfam-petitioner No.2 was engaged in the work of collecting hides and bones of dead animals and respondent No.3 i.e.Upper Mukhya Adhikari, Zila Panchayat, Haridwar also gave a licence to him and he has also cleared entire dues in respect of license granted earlier. According to the petitioner, prior to creation of the State of Uttarakhand (earlier known as Uttaranchal), the Government of U.P. issued a circular/Government Order dated 30th March, 1996 for granting license by the Zila Panchayat regarding dead animals. Government of U.P. directed all the Zila Panchayats to grant license to the registered societies and in case the registered society is not available then it was directed that the same may be given by auction to persons who have been traditionally engaged in the same business. 3 On 15-3-2007, the petitioners’ society moved an application before the respondent No.3 to grant license in the area of Nyaya Panchayat Banjara Wala and offered a sum of Rs. 33,000/-. Since the petitioner society is registered with the Registrar, therefore, the petitioner society is entitled to get the license for collecting the hides and bones in the area of Nyaya Panchayat Banjarawala. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that without inviting applications from the societies or individuals, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have illegally given the license to the respondent No.4 in the area of Nyaya Panchayat Banjarawala for an amount of Rs. 33,000/-. When the application was moved by the petitioners before the Chairperson of Zila Panchayat, Haridwar, the respondent No.2-Chair person of Zila Panchayat directed the respondent No.3 to issue the receipt in favour of the petitioner society for issuing the licence to the petitioners society. On the same day, the petitioners approached to the respondent No.3 and inclined to deposit the amount as per order dated 26-3-2007 but the respondent No.3 on the same day passed another order dated 26-3-2007 mentioning therein that the Chairperson of Zila Panchayat has issued an oral instruction not to issue the receipt to the petitioners society for the year 2007-2008. When the petitioners went to deposit the license fee, the respondent No.3 declined to deposit the fee by the petitioner. The respondent No.3 i.e. Upper Mukhya Adhikari, Zila Panchayat, Haridwar without inviting applications from the Societies as well as from the individuals passed an order on 30-3-2007 for granting of license in favour of the respondent No.4 for an amount of Rs. 33,000/- . It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioners moved an application before the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 mention therein to cancel the license of the respondent No.4 and the same will be given to the petitioners in accordance with law but the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were not paying attention to the petitioners grievance. 4 On 12-4-2007, this Court passed an interim order that, the operation of the order dated 30-3-2007 passed by the respondent No.2- Chairperson, Zila Panchayat, Haridwar shall remain stayed but on 27-4- 2007, the Division Bench of this Court vacated the interim order and fresh order was passed to grant of license in favour of respondent No.4 i.e. Saleem and the same was subject to the final decision in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since the license, which was granted by the respondent No.3 to the respondent No.4 was valid up to 31-3-2008 and that period of the contract had already been expired, therefore, the writ petition has rendered infructuous. In view of the above fact, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. All applications stands disposed of accordingly. (B.S. Verma,J) M.K. 5 6