\J ? QHE‘eM m . ............................... WW WW %3Tfa11311%¥[ 25.08.2004 Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, coun sel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay S Agarwal, Govt. Adv. for the State. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution cf India being aggrieved by the in action on the part of respondent No.2 in not deciding me petitioner’s application for grant of license to install trolley machine in a The case of the petitioner is 1 saw mill granted to him by responc Kasthe Chiran (Vininiyam) Adhiniya moved an application before respon one trolley machine (Aada BensaL machine already installed in the saw it since then and not deciding that ap Having heard the learned counlsel for the parties, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the cape and’having regard to the fact-that normally license is granted for one y saw mill since 30. 10.2003. hat he is a license holder for running a lent No.2 as per the provisions of C.G. m, 1984. On 30.10.2008 the petitioner :lent No.2 seeking permission to install which is supplemental to the main mill but respondent No.2 is sitting over ‘lplication either way. ‘Ear and thereafter, it is renewed one by one year and around about 10 months is about to expire from the date of filing of the application and respondent No.2 in ordinary circumstances ought to have decided the applicatior not decided the same for the reason: circumstances the respondent No.2 the petitioner within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of this order in accordance with law. With this direction, the petition stands disposed of. Consequently, M.W.P. No. 1901 /O4 65 4923/04 also stand disposed of. ’ Certified copy as per Rules. l in accordance with the law but he has i best known to him. Therefore,.in the is directed to decide the application of Sdl- Ill l, L.c.BHADoo ‘ Judge lave} M ‘ ‘7: i: E