WP(C) 2557/2004 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr. A. R. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J. Handique, learned State Counsel for the official respondents. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking its intervention for a direction to the Divisional Forest Officer, District Karimganj, Assam, to renew his license for establishing and running a Sawn Timber Sale Depot at Kazirbazar, Ratabari, Karimganj. His pleaded case is that in response to his untiring effor ts, the aforementioned authority accorded permission for establishment of such a depot on 17.8.1996, following which, he completed the necessary formalities and also deposited the fees on various heads as required and licence was also issue d by the Divisional Forest Officer, District Karimganj bearing No. Kxj 77/96-97 for the establishment of his sale depot at the above location, validity of the s aid licence was limited upto 31.3.1997. The petitioner in view of the accompanyi ng family problems however could not start the sale depot within this deadline. As his repeated endeavours to obtain the renewal of the said licence did not yie ld results, he approached this Court for redress. Mr. Talukdar has urged in the above factual background that an appropria te writ and/or direction ought to be issued to the Divisional Forest Officer, Ka rimganj, to renew the license of the petitioner for making his sale depot functi onal subject to completion of the essential formalities under which the said lic ence was issued. Mr. Handique, on the other hand, has submitted that at this distant poin t of time, the relief as prayed for by the petitioner, is untenable and therefor e this petition is liable to be rejected. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the pleaded facts, this Court is of the view that in absence of the updated f acts demonstrating the current state-of-affairs vis-à-vis the sale depot propose d to be made functional by the petitioner, it would not be appropriate to issue any direction as sought for by him. The petitioner’s licence had admittedly expi red on 31.3.1997 and he approached this Court in the year, 2004 after a gap of s even years. Meanwhile, another seven years have also elapsed. On being queried by this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner h as also not been able to disclose the updated state-of-affairs vis-à-vis the sal e depot of the petitioner. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this petition is closed. N o costs.