Honble Mrs. Saroj Bala, J.—In all the writ petitions a common question of law about the grant/renewal of licence for operating saw-mills having been raised, they are being decided simultaneously.

(1) Writ Petition No. 36598 of 2004 :

2. The petitioners seek a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to consider the case of the petitioners for renewal of licence.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that the saw-mill was established in the year 1989 by his father who submitted licence fee with penalty from 1989 to 1997 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). The petitioners’ father had been running the saw-mill earlier than the year 1989 without any licence. According to the petitioners in the year 1996 some officers of the forest department informed him that licence is required for the running of saw-mill. When the petitioners applied for licence ‘no objection certificate’ from the District Magistrate, Aligarh was required to be furnished. According to the petitioners after filing of no objection certificate licence to run the saw-mill was given in the year 1996. The assertion of the petitioners is that the U.P. Establishment and Regulations of Saw Mills Rules, 1978 provide that if an application for grant of licence is not disposed of within 60 days from the date of receipt of the application the licence shall be deemed to have been granted. The petitioners have stated that the respondent No. 3 having not disposed of the application of the petitioner’s father within a period of 60 days the licence for running the saw-mill shall be deemed to have been granted. After the death of petitioners’ father on 1-2-1997 they became the owners of the saw-mill and approached the respondent No. 3 for the renewal of licence. The petitioners made representations on 24-11-2003 and 31-9-2004 (Annexures-2 and 3 to the writ petition) to the respondent No. 3 in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Nand Lal v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 2002 All 141 but the respondents did not consider their representations. The contention of the petitioners is that the respondents have misinterpreted the order of the Apex Court in the case of T.N. Godawarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1228, wherein the direction to close down the saw mills having no valid licence on 1-4-1997 was issued. The petitioners stated that the decision in the said case was reconsidered by the Apex Court in relation to the State of U.P. more particularly the question of renewal or grant of fresh licence for running the saw mills.

No counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents has been filed.

(2) Writ Petition No. 50612 of 2004 : T

4. He petitioners seek a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 22-11-2004 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 4 whereby declining to grant fresh licence for the running of saw mill. Each of the petitioners is the owner of saw-mill running with the aid of electric power upto 10 to 12 HP. The contention of the petitioners is that their applications for grant of licence have been rejected on the basis of the order dated 4-3-1999 passed by the Apex Court in Godavarman’s case. The petitioners have stated that the import of the decision of the Supreme Court is not that no fresh licence for the running of the saw-mill can be granted. According to the petitioners this Court had the occasion to consider the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Nand Lal v. State of U.P.. The petitioners assert that the authority concerned has not taken into consideration the provisions of U.P. Establishment and Regulations of Saw Mills Rules, 1978 as amended by second amendment of 1998. The petitioners have stated that the applications for grant of licence having been moved under Rule 5 of the Rules, 1978 they should have been considered under the said provision. According to the petitioners in the entire district of Deoria there is no forest