Back
1992 Supreme(Pat) 218
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PATNA
B. C. Basak, CJ & Chy. S. N. Mishra, J.
Baijnath Singh & ors. -Petitioner
v.
The State of Bihar & others - Respondent
C.W.J.C. No. 1032 of 1992
Decided on : 5.7.1992
The renewal of a license by the appropriate department cannot be questioned by another department, and no action can be taken by any other department during the pendency of the renewal.
Headnote:
Renewal - Dispute between State Government Departments - The court held that the renewal of the petitioner's license for mining and stone equipments, granted by the Mining Department, could not be questioned by another department. The seizure of the petitioner's articles by the Forest Department was deemed unlawful and without jurisdiction, and the court directed the concerned respondent to restore the articles to the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was granted a license for mining and stone equipments by the Mining Department. The Forest Department seized certain articles of the petitioner, claiming that the renewal of the license was not lawfully done.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the actions of the Forest Department were unlawful and without jurisdiction, and directed the concerned respondent to restore the seized articles to the petitioner. The court also clarified that it had not delved into the merits of the case beyond the specific issue addressed.
Issues: Dispute between State Government Departments, Seizure of Petitioner's Articles, Validity of License Renewal
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the renewal of the petitioner's license by the Mining Department could not be questioned by another department. It emphasized that the petitioner's license for renewal was still in existence and that no action could be taken by any other department during its pendency.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application, declared the seizure of the petitioner's articles as unlawful and without jurisdiction, and directed the concerned respondent to restore the articles to the petitioner. The court also clarified that its order would not apply if the license in favor of another petitioner had not been renewed, but that petitioner could make an application for renewal to be dealt with by the appropriate authority.
B. C. Basak, C. J. and Chy. S. N. Mishra, J. - After hearing the learned Advocates for the different parties it appears that the question involved before us is simple. There are three parties before us. It seems that really the disputes are between two departments of the State Government.
2. The petitioner was given a licence for mining and stone equipments. Admittedly such licence had to be granted and renewal made by the Mining Department. The next admitted position is that it is the Mining Department which is entitled to take any action in respect of the licence. What has happend is that, the another department of the Government, namely, the Forest Department has taken certain steps for the seizure of certain articles of the petitioner solely on the ground that the renewal of the licence for t he year of the petitioner by the Mining Department was not lawfully done.
3. The Mining Department being the appropriate department for grant of such renewal, the question whether under the facts and circumstances of this case, and in view of the provisions of the relevant law, they should not have granted this renewal or not cannot be raised by some other Department. In our opinion, it is unfortunate that two departments are fighting between themselves and the petitioner is made to suffer for this. The petitioner's licence for renewal is still in existence and the period has not yet expired. During the pendency of the same, no such action can be- taken by any other department.
4. Accordingly, we allow this application. The seizure of the plants, machines and quaryring of stone equipments, crushed stones and boulders are unlawful and without jurisdiction. We direct the respondent concerned to restore the same to the petitioner. We make it clear that this will not prevent the Mining Department to take any appropriate action in accordance with law.
5. Let it further be recorded that except to the extent indicated above, we have not gone into the merits of the case.
6. Let it also be recorded that licence of petitioner no.6 has not been renewed, according to the learned Advocate appearing for the Mining Department. Accordingly this order in favour of the petitioners will not apply in case of petitioner no. 6, if the licence in favour of petitioner no. 6 has not been renewed.
7. However, this will not prevent petitioner no. 6 for making an application for renewal which shall be dealt with by the appropriate authority in accordance with law.
8. This application is disposed of accordingly.
