HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.1775 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.23402 of 2009 feeling aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents 1 and 2 to renew the Sawmill licence in the name of the petitioner. It was pleaded that the licence was originally given to the petitioner but by mistake, it was renewed in the name of his brother from 2001 onwards. On the ground that the brother of the petitioner died on 07-10-2005, the respondents refused to renew the licence. While admitting the writ petition, this Court passed an interim order by referring to the facts mentioned above and directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to run the business. 2. This Contempt Case is filed stating that despite the interim order passed by this Court permitting the petitioner to run the sawmill, the respondents are not renewing the licence and not permitting the petitioner to run the sawmill. 3. First respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit. It is admitted that the licence was initially granted to the petitioner in the year 1994 and it was renewed in the name of his brother in the year 2001. It is, however, stated that on account of the mistake on the part of the licensing authority, the renewal was made in the name of the brother of the petitioner and since he died, subsequent renewals have not been granted. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the leaned Government Pleader for Forest, appearing for the respondents. 5. Respondents clearly admitted that the petitioner was the original licensee and so much so, that it was renewed up to the year 2000. For one reason or the other, out of sheer mistake, the renewal beyond 2000 was being made in the name of the brother of the petitioner. The petitioner also did not feel aggrieved since the renewals granted year after year inured to his benefit. 6. Respondents prevented the petitioner from running the sawmill on coming to know that the person, in whose name the licence was renewed, died. Technically speaking, they may be right in this regard. However, once it emerges that the very renewal in the name of the brother of the petitioner was on account of the mistake, the respondents cannot take advantage of their own mistake. Even now the same can be rectified. 7. Hence, the Contempt Case is closed, directing the respondents to rectify the mistake, which is mentioned in paragraph No.9 of the counter affidavit, within four (4) weeks from today. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J August 16, 2010. KTL