1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7839 OF 2006 Balkishan s/o Badrinarayan Loya, Age-62 years, Occu:Agriculture & Business, R/o-Kumbhar Pimpalgaon, Tq-Ambad, Dist-Jalna. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) Chief Conservator of Forest, Maharashtra State, Nagpur, 3) Conservator Forest, (Officer), Aurangabad Circle, Aurangabad, 4) Deputy Conservator of Forest, Aurangabad, Forest Division, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri. V.D. Salunke Advocate for Petitioner. Shri. R.P. Phatke, A.G.P. for Respondents. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. 2 ORDER RESERVED ON : 6TH APRIL, 2010 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 8TH APRIL, 2010 ORDER [PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.] : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Petitioner contends that he is an agriculturist and was running a Saw Mill at village Kumbhar Pimpalgaon since prior to 1961. The Petitioner placed on record copy of license granted to run the Saw Mill(Aara Girni) issued by the Executive Officer, District Board, Aurangabad dated 18th January, 1961. The Petitioner's contention is that the Petitioner was running the Saw Mill and thereafter filed an application dated 4th December, 1987 to the Respondent No.4 for renewal and grant of license to the Saw Mill. The Petitioner continued to run the Saw Mill from 1961 to 1978. It was submitted by the counsel before us that in the year 1987 the machine was sealed by the Forest Officer. 3 3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that by an order dated 31st January, 1990 the Deputy Forest Officer, Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad rejected the permission to grant license to the Petitioner to run the Saw Mill. The Petitioner filed Writ Petition bearing No.705 of 1990. The Division Bench of this Court dismissed the Petition by granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Competent Authority for renewal of license which was to be considered on its own merits and as per law laid down by the Supreme Court. This Order was passed on 20th July, 2001. The Petitioner filed an application on 23rd June, 2006, which came to be rejected by the Deputy Forest Officer by an order dated 1st August, 2006 (Exhibit L). The Petitioner's application for renewal of license was also rejected by this communication. 4. Shri Salunke, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Authorities throughout misconstrued that the Petitioner was 4 asking for new license; whereas the Petitioner was asking for renewal of the license. Learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the decision in the case of Jawahar Lal Sharma vs. Divisional Forest Officer, U.P., reported in 2002 (3) S.C.C. Page 42 and in the case of Nand Lal vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in A.I.R. 2002 Allahabad Page 141. 5. The learned A.G.P. submitted that the Petitioner was running the Saw Mill (Aara Girni) unauthorizedly. The earlier Petition filed by the Petitioner was dismissed. The Petitioner was not having any license apart from the license granted for limited period in the year 1961. The Petitioner's application was rejected in the year 1990. The Petitioner approached the Court and the Authorities at highly belated stage. There is abnormal delay in Petitioner's approaching the Authorities and the Court. The learned A.G.P. further submitted that the application filed by 5 the Petitioner in the year 2006 with the Authorities was not filed consequent to the liberty granted by the Court. 6. The learned A.G.P. referred to the decision in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs. Union of India and others, reported in A.I.R. 1997 Supreme Court Page 1233. 7. Prima facie, we find that the Petitioner was granted license by the District Board, Aurangabad, as it then was, on 18th January, 1961 to run the Saw Mill/ Aara Girni till 31st March, 1961. Though the Petitioner claims that he continued to run the Saw Mill till 1978, we do not find the renewal of license till 1978. What steps were taken by the Petitioner between the period from 1978 to 1987, in which year the machine was sealed by the Forest Officer, is not explained by the Petitioner properly. The Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.702 of 1990, which came to be dismissed in the year 2001 in view of the decision 6 of the Apex Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs. Union of India and others, reported in A.I.R. 1997 Supreme Court Page 1233. The Petitioner's further application for renewal was filed in the year 2006, after five years of the dismissal of the earlier Writ Petition, which came to be rejected on 1st August, 2006. We find that the Petitioner approached the Authorities after abnormal delay. The Petitioner was not diligent in prosecuting his remedies. The Petitioner is not entitled to blame the Authorities on the ground that he was all along seeking renewal of license and Authorities were considering his application for issuance of fresh license. The Petitioner now seeks direction to quash and set aside the communication dated 31st January, 1990 and 1st August, 2006 in a Writ Petition filed in the year 2006. The machine was sealed long back. The Petitioner must not be running the Saw Mill, as there is no license neither any renewal of license since last so many years. 7 8. In the light of the view adopted by the Apex Court reported in the Judgment cited supra and in the facts of the case, we are not inclined to entertain the Petition. The Petition is devoid of merits, it is accordingly dismissed. [N.D. DESHPANDE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/APR10/wp7839.06